Ohio Gadfly Daily BlogNon-profit education think tank dedicated to educational excellence and education reform.http://edexcellence.net/
enFri, 31 Jul 2015 12:43:35 -0400Fri, 31 Jul 2015 17:17:54 -0400Funding Gaps 2015: Too many states still spend less on educating students who need the mosthttp://edexcellence.net/articles/funding-gaps-2015-too-many-states-still-spend-less-on-educating-students-who-need-the-most
<p>A recent study from the Education Trust called <a href="http://1k9gl1yevnfp2lpq1dhrqe17.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/FundingGaps2015_TheEducationTrust1.pdf">Funding Gaps 2015</a> illuminates the per-student funding disparities between affluent and poor districts. Findings show that, on average, more state and local tax dollars find their way to wealthier districts. For many, this overall trend is hardly surprising, but perhaps more interesting is where the trend is actually being reversed.</p>
<p>Authors Natasha Ushomirsky and David Williams examined the Census Bureau’s finance data, specifically focusing on each state’s state and local funding (excluding federal dollars). Nationally, the report concluded that districts with the highest poverty receive about 10 percent less in state and local funding (or about $1,200 less per student) than the wealthiest districts. Seventeen states, however, defied the national trend: Their highest-poverty districts receive at least 5 percent more than the lowest-poverty districts. According to the Education Trust’s analysis, Ohio was the national leader, boasting 22 percent more funding for its highest-poverty districts.</p>
<p>But when the authors accounted for the estimated 40 percent more funding needed to educate students in the highest-poverty districts—an estimate pulled from the Title I formula—the gap widens. When this is accounted for, the highest-poverty districts receive about $2,200 (or 18 percent) less per student than low-poverty districts; only four states, including Ohio, provide at least 5 percent more funding to the highest-poverty districts.</p>
<p>The report also dissects the source of revenue, whether state or local. This distinction is important to remember, since local funding is primarily derived from property taxes, and that tax base can vary widely from district to district. (For instance, a 1 percent property tax will yield different amounts of revenue depending on the value of a district’s taxable property.) But conceived well, state funding policies can be an equalizer by appropriating more state dollars toward districts that need it most. Some states, as the report notes, direct more aid to high-poverty districts.</p>
<p>That being said, some states are providing substantially more funding to their highest-poverty districts than others. For example, New Jersey provides 431 percent more state funding to its highest-poverty schools. Nine states in all, including Ohio, provide at least 100 percent more in state funding to the highest-poverty districts. Conversely, five states—Montana, North Dakota, Utah, South Carolina, and New Mexico—provide relatively equal amounts of state funding. </p>
<p>Of course, funding can be sliced and analyzed many different ways. What’s most important is that funds, no matter their source, get to the students who need it the most. Many states are getting closer by driving more state aid to high-need districts, but additional improvements to <a href="http://edexcellence.net/articles/three-ideas-on-fixing-school-funding-in-ohio">funding systems</a> must still be made. Equitable funding does not guarantee equitable results, but it is one concrete way to begin leveling the playing field. </p>
<p>SOURCE: Natasha Ushomirsky and David Williams, “<a href="http://1k9gl1yevnfp2lpq1dhrqe17.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/FundingGaps2015_TheEducationTrust1.pdf">Funding Gaps 2015: Too many states still spend less on educating students who need the most</a>,” The Education Trust (March 2015)</p>
http://edexcellence.net/articles/funding-gaps-2015-too-many-states-still-spend-less-on-educating-students-who-need-the-mostOhio Gadfly Daily BlogFunding Gaps 2015: Too many states still spend less on educating students who need the mostMichael PeriattGadfly Bites - 7/31/15http://edexcellence.net/articles/gadfly-bites-73115
<div>Today is the textbook definition of a “slow news day” here in Ohio, but maybe that will help us parse the few interesting stories we have a little more deeply. Of interesting note: all of today’s stories are about school choice, from very different perspectives.</div>
<div> </div>
<ol><li>First up, we’re talking about an “oldie but goodie” in the school choice pantheon – vocational education – from the perspective of an avid purveyor of educational options. This is a guest column by the President/CEO of Great Oaks Career Campuses in Southwest Ohio, extolling the virtues of career tech education in the 21st century. This is not your father’s shop class, and the Pres seems a fine advocate for the benefits of CTE for Ohio students. (Cincinnati Enquirer, 7/29/15)<br /> </li>
<li>Second is a relative newcomer to the school choice world – virtual schooling – from a perspective that one might call “opportunistic”, if one were feeling uncharitable. Garaway Schools in eastern Ohio has created a new virtual school in order to stem the flow of money/students from their district to online charter schools; oh, and to give students the flexibility they need to blah blah blah. It is about the district losing less kids to “them”, and the money-centric language is all over this interview and on the website for the school. Sadly, the new academy actually sounds promising – offering both blended and all-online tracks, and something called an “Afterschool Pirate Crew” to extend school hours into the evening. Hopefully there is someone in the Garaway Schools who actually believes in the benefits of the new program to help it reach its full potential on behalf of students who need it, because they seemingly don’t have anyone willing to sell it to families on its merits. (New Philadelphia Times Reporter, 7/30/15)<br /> </li>
<li>Finally, we have a story that doesn’t initially scream out “school choice”, but stay with me here. There is an all-city band camp going on this week in Youngstown, and its director is an enthusiastic supporter of the arts and the kids in his program. All thirteen of them. “Citywide” means students like Jah-Nice, who chooses to attend Youngstown Early College School, is playing and learning with students from Chaney and other Youngstown high schools. Yes, this is just a summer program, but allowing academic choice should necessitate allowing extracurricular choice just like this AND it should mean that it is possible in other areas (sports, Science Olympiad, etc.) all year around. I think that is a perspective the band camp director could get behind, especially in Youngstown. (Youngstown Vindicator, 7/30/15)</li>
</ol><div> </div>
http://edexcellence.net/articles/gadfly-bites-73115Ohio Gadfly Daily BlogGadfly Bites - 7/31/15Jeff MurrayGadfly Bites - 7/29/15http://edexcellence.net/articles/gadfly-bites-72915
<ol><li>An excellent article from an unlikely source. Here’s <a href="http://www.crainscleveland.com/article/20150726/NEWS/307269998/cleveland-school-districts-efforts-to-bring-charter-schools-on-board">a look at the status of Cleveland’s school turnaround plan from the perspective of a business publication</a>. While the district CEO speaks the usual ed reform language of “let’s stop bickering over ‘turf’ and ‘ownership of kids’,” the business analysts cut through the rhetoric with this: There are over 2,750 students enrolled in mid-performing charter schools currently unaffiliated with the district. This is a “significant opportunity” for the district to align itself with some of the most promising schools, nudge them into the next category, and so move closer to the plan’s goal of tripling the number of kids in high-performing schools. The only question for them is how to seal the deal. (Crain’s Cleveland Business, 7/26/15)<br /> </li>
<li>As if they have a recurring event on their Google calendar, <a href="http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/07/shame_on_the_ohio_house_for_wa.html#incart_river">editors in Cleveland once again opined in outrage</a> that charter law reform remains stalled in the General Assembly. (Cleveland Plain Dealer, 7/28/15)<br /> </li>
<li>From outrage to barely contained glee: <a href="http://www.toledoblade.com/Education/2015/07/28/No-new-charter-schools-scheduled-to-open-in-Toledo.html">no new charter schools are slated to open in Toledo</a> in the 2015-16 school year. And no, that’s not an op-ed. (Toledo Blade, 7/29/15)<br /> </li>
<li>The current Academic Distress Commission in Youngstown met earlier this week, their first official meeting since the passage of HB 70 – the so-called “Youngstown Plan”. Of course, we know that the bill actually sharpened the state’s academic distress commission protocols statewide, although it was (for now) narrowly targeted at Youngstown. At this meeting, the current commission was told that <a href="http://www.vindy.com/news/2015/jul/28/new-panel-to-start-work-by-october/">the new commission, under the new and more-stringent rules, would be appointed by October</a> and a district CEO in place by December. (Youngstown Vindicator, 7/28/15). Amid the predictable reaction (investigation of process, threats of legal action, etc.) was a serious question: just <a href="http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2015/07/lame_duck_youngstown_schools_p.html#incart_river">what is the current distress commission expected to do until the new one is appointed</a>? No serious answer was forthcoming. (Cleveland Plain Dealer, 7/28/15). Meanwhile, <a href="http://www.vindy.com/news/2015/jul/29/city-school-board-has-questions-for-stat/">the sitting school board – which will continue in existence – is asking similar questions</a> about their own authority and duties under the impending new commission. (Youngstown Vindicator, 7/29/15) </li>
</ol>http://edexcellence.net/articles/gadfly-bites-72915Ohio Gadfly Daily BlogGadfly Bites - 7/29/15Jeff MurrayDo good schools leave low-income and minority students behind?http://edexcellence.net/articles/do-good-schools-leave-low-income-and-minority-students-behind
<p>As <a href="http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/campaign-k-12/2015/07/senate_passes_esea_rewrite_wit.html">ESEA reauthorization</a> heads to conference committee, debate is certain to center on whether federal law should require states to intervene if certain subgroups are falling behind in otherwise satisfactory schools. Civil rights groups tend to favor <a href="http://www.murphy.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/murphy-booker-warren-coons-introduce-accountability-amendment-to-senates-education-bill">mandatory intervention</a>. Conservatives (and the teachers’ unions) want states to decide how to craft their school ratings systems, and when and how to take action if schools don’t measure up. The Obama administration is siding with the civil rights groups; a <a href="http://fattah.house.gov/uploads/White%20House%20Report%20Education%20July%202015.pdf">recent White House release</a>, clearly timed to influence the ESEA debate, notes that we “know that disadvantaged students often fall behind in higher-performing schools.”</p>
<p>But in how many cases do otherwise adequate schools leave their neediest students behind? Are there enough schools of this variety to justify a federal mandate? Fortunately, we have data—and the data show this type of school to be virtually nonexistent.</p>
<p>In a <a href="http://edexcellence.net/articles/do-good-schools-leave-low-achieving-students-behind">recent post</a>, I looked at school-level results from Fordham’s home state of Ohio. That analysis uncovered very few high-performing schools in which low-achieving students made weak gains. (“Low-achieving” is defined as the lowest-performing fifth of students statewide.) Just seven schools (in a universe of more than 2,300) clearly performed well as a whole while allowing their low-achievers to lag far behind.</p>
<p>But perhaps Ohio’s data are an anomaly. Or maybe the low-achieving subgroup results don’t tell the full story. (Ohio doesn’t break out growth results by race or by economic disadvantage.) So I looked for another state that disaggregates student growth results by subgroup.</p>
<p>Surprisingly, twenty-three states do so—an impressive number that demonstrates the improvements states are making in school accountability systems. Colorado is one such state, and it has an extensive but navigable <a href="http://www.cde.state.co.us/schoolview/coloradogrowthmodel">reporting system</a>. It also disaggregates results for seven different student subgroups—the most we observed in our fifty-state review. Colorado employs the <a href="http://www.rand.org/education/projects/measuring-teacher-effectiveness/student-growth-percentiles.html">Student Growth Percentiles</a> (SGP) methodology to measure student growth. SGP utilizes longitudinal, individual student data and statistical methods to calculate learning growth over time, a similar but not an exact equivalent of Ohio’s <a href="http://www.rand.org/topics/value-added-modeling-in-education.html">value-added model</a>.</p>
<p>When we look at the school-level results from Colorado, a story similar to Ohio’s emerges. Only a small number of highly rated schools, as measured by growth on state exams, appear to leave disadvantaged students far behind. In fact, just eleven schools—less than 1 percent of those rated—perform well overall, while also receiving the lowest rating for their Free or Reduced-Price Lunch (FRPL) students. Only four schools do well overall while receiving the lowest rating for their minority students.</p>
<p><strong>Table 1:</strong> Number of schools receiving each combination of overall and subgroup growth ratings in reading, Colorado schools, 2013–14</p>
<p style="margin-left:.25in;"><strong>(A) </strong>Overall versus FRPL student subgroup ratings</p>
<p><img class="media-element file-default" typeof="foaf:Image" src="http://edexcellence.net/sites/default/files/Aaron%20chart%201_0_2.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p style="margin-left:.25in;"><strong>(B) </strong>Overall versus minority student subgroup ratings</p>
<p><img class="media-element file-default" typeof="foaf:Image" src="http://edexcellence.net/sites/default/files/Aaron%20chart%202_0_0.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p><strong>Source</strong>: <a href="http://www.cde.state.co.us/accountability/performanceframeworkresults">Colorado Department of Education</a></p>
<p><strong>Notes</strong>: The numbers of schools included in Tables 1A and 1B are 1,810 and 1,753 respectively. Colorado has four rating categories, from lowest to highest: “does not meet,” “approaching,” “meets,” and “exceeds expectations.” The ratings are assigned based on a school’s median growth percentile scores and whether the school has made “adequate” growth; for more details on the school rating procedures, see this <a href="http://www.cde.state.co.us/accountability/spfdpf_technicalwriteup_072814">document</a>. “Minority student” denotes any non-white student—the state does not decompose a school’s minority subgroup rating by specific race or ethnic group.</p>
<p>Consider also the charts below, which display the relationship between a school’s overall and subgroup growth scores in numeric terms. You’ll notice a remarkably strong correlation between overall and subgroup performance. (Of course, some schools have a large fraction of disadvantaged or minority students; for those schools, we’d expect a near-perfect correlation.)</p>
<p><strong>Chart 2:</strong> Correlation between overall and subgroup growth scores in reading, Colorado schools, 2013–14</p>
<p style="margin-left:.25in;"><strong>(A) </strong>Overall versus FRPL student growth scores </p>
<p> <img style="font-size: 13.0080003738403px; line-height: 1.538em;" class="media-element file-default" typeof="foaf:Image" src="http://edexcellence.net/sites/default/files/Aaron%20graph%201.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p style="margin-left:.25in;"><strong>(B) </strong>Overall versus minority student growth scores</p>
<p><img class="media-element file-default" typeof="foaf:Image" src="http://edexcellence.net/sites/default/files/Aaron%20graph%202.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p><strong>Source</strong>: <a href="http://www.cde.state.co.us/accountability/performanceframeworkresults">Colorado Department of Education</a></p>
<p><strong>Notes</strong>: A school’s median growth percentile is reported on a scale of 1–99, based on a three-year average; a higher value indicates that a group of students—either an entire school of students or a subgroup—is making relatively more progress than its peer group (e.g., a median value of 80 indicates that the group’s growth outpaced 80 percent of its peers); a lower value indicates that the group made less progress. See <a href="http://www.schoolview.org/GMFAQ.asp">here</a> for more information. The numbers of schools included in Charts 2A and 2B are 1,810 and 1,753, respectively (some schools receive an identical combination of values, so the actual number of points displayed doesn’t match the n-count). Elementary, middle, and high schools are included. Correlation coefficients are 0.86 and 0.89 for FRPL and minority subgroups, respectively. The correlations for math, not displayed, are not substantially different from the reading results (0.89 and 0.93 for FRPL and minority subgroups, respectively).</p>
<p>The evidence from Colorado and Ohio suggests this general principle: Good schools are usually good for needy children (and, conversely, bad schools are bad for them). The NCLB-era concern about schools’ averages masking poor subgroup performance goes away if we measure school effectiveness the right way—via student growth rather than proficiency rates.</p>
<p>Still, like Ohio, Colorado has a few outlier schools—those that perform well overall but poorly for disadvantaged groups. One Colorado school, for example, had an overall score of 54—slightly above-average progress for all students—but a score of 24 for its FRPL-eligible students. States are absolutely right to identify such outliers, and local educators, parents, and citizens should be alarmed about the discrepancy in results.</p>
<p>As federal lawmakers weigh intervention policy options, though, they should reflect on the evidence from Ohio and Colorado. The number of otherwise-satisfactory schools where disadvantaged students lag behind is vanishingly small. (So trivial is the number of such schools that the administration’s claim, cited above, that this occurs “often” should be called into question.) Should federal lawmakers create a nationwide, one-size-fits-all school intervention policy based on isolated cases? Not in my view; it would be like mandating hurricane drills in Kansas.</p>
http://edexcellence.net/articles/do-good-schools-leave-low-income-and-minority-students-behindOhio Gadfly Daily BlogDo good schools leave low-income and minority students behind?Aaron Churchill Pacts Americana: Balancing National Interests, State Autonomy, and Education Accountabilityhttp://edexcellence.net/articles/pacts-americana-balancing-national-interests-state-autonomy-and-education-accountability
<p>No Child Left Behind (NCLB) undoubtedly increased the federal footprint in education. As Congress <a href="http://edexcellence.net/articles/to-my-friends-on-the-left-and-right-please-stop-polarizing-the-esea-debate">debate</a>s how to rewrite the law, a new <a href="http://bellwethereducation.org/sites/default/files/Bellwether_ESEA_June2015.pdf">analysis</a> from Bellwether Education Partners couldn’t be timelier.</p>
<p>The report starts with a look at the history of federal involvement in K–12 education and how NCLB tilted the balance of power toward Uncle Sam. Although NCLB started as a bipartisan bill with broad support, critics multiplied as the deadline for universal proficiency approached, interventions for low-performing schools mounted, and conditional waivers from the law were granted by the Department of Education. Among its shortfalls, NCLB included “over-prescriptive” provisions that mandate how a state education system should be run and a misguided one-size-fits-all approach.</p>
<p>But the law wasn’t all bad. Evidence suggests that NCLB’s accountability measures were effective in improving schools and student performance. These improvements were particularly evident among black and Hispanic students. The authors of this report applaud a requirement that states break down testing data into disadvantaged subgroups, thereby shining a light on students who are most at risk.</p>
<p>So how can policymakers keep the good (transparency and accountability) while ditching the bad (micromanagement)? The Bellwether analysts turn to the charter concept and argue that states should be granted much more autonomy in return for strict accountability concerning results.</p>
<p>Specifically, the authors call for a “performance compact system,” in which each state would come up with a plan or “theory of action.” Under this plan, states would create their own assessments, performance goals, benchmarks, and college-ready standards (as determined by in-state colleges and universities). The feds would get to sign off on the plans, and if states didn’t meet the goals they set for themselves, they would have to reapply with specific changes in order to continue receiving federal funding.</p>
<p>Overall, Bellwether’s framework largely abandons a system based on rules and regulations and instead designs one premised on performance. At its core is a commonsense agreement: In exchange for federal tax dollars, states need to show that taxpayers are getting a return on their investment. When that investment is America’s children, it’s essential to ensure the money is being used effectively.</p>
<p>SOURCE: Chad Aldeman, Kelly Robson, and Andy Smarick, “<a href="http://bellwethereducation.org/sites/default/files/Bellwether_ESEA_June2015.pdf">Pacts Americana: Balancing National Interests, State Autonomy, and Education Accountability</a>,” Bellwether Education Partners (June 2015)</p>
http://edexcellence.net/articles/pacts-americana-balancing-national-interests-state-autonomy-and-education-accountabilityOhio Gadfly Daily BlogPacts Americana: Balancing National Interests, State Autonomy, and Education AccountabilityMichael PeriattThe consequences of safe harborhttp://edexcellence.net/articles/the-consequences-of-safe-harbor
<p>On June 30, <a href="http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2015/06/30/Kasich_budget_vetoes.html">Governor John Kasich vetoed forty-four items</a> in the <a href="https://www.legislature.ohio.gov/legislation/legislation-documents?id=GA131-HB-64">budget</a> and signed the rest into law. Among the provisions that survived is an extension of “safe harbor” as Ohio continues its transition to new standards and assessments. Last year, lawmakers created this “safe harbor” policy for students, schools, and teachers; it pertains to certain test-based accountability provisions for 2014–15. With the 2015 budget bill, they’ve extended it by two more years (2015–16 and 2016–17).</p>
<p>The safe harbor provisions for students and teachers are pretty straightforward. For students, test scores from the 2014–15, 2015–16, or 2016–17 school years cannot be used “as a factor in any decision to promote or to deny the student promotion to a higher grade level or in any decision to grant course credit.” While not explicitly mentioned, this means that failed End of Course exams won’t equate to lost course credit or <a href="http://education.ohio.gov/getattachment/Topics/What-s-Happening-with-Ohio-s-Graduation-Requiremen/Graduation-Requirements-2018-Beyond/GradReq_2018.pdf.aspx">failure to graduate</a>. </p>
<p>For teachers, safe harbor means that the “value-added progress dimension rating” determined by state tests administered in 2014–15 and 2015–16 cannot be used for “assessing student academic growth” for teacher evaluations, or “when making decisions regarding the dismissal, retention, tenure, or compensation” of teachers. There is, however, a provision that allows a school or district to enter into a “memorandum of understanding collectively” with teachers that permits the use of value-added results for evaluations, dismissal, retention, tenure, or compensation. It’s hard to imagine that any district would take advantage of this provision, or that teachers would agree if they did, but it exists as an option. </p>
<p>The safe harbor provisions for schools, however, are a bit more complicated. The budget text starts by stating that the department of education “shall not assign an overall letter grade…for any school district or building for the 2014–15, 2015–16, and 2016–17 school years and shall not rank school districts, community schools […] or STEM schools” for those years. Schools will still get report cards with grades for overall proficiency and overall growth—plus the same for various student subgroups—as they do now. (Here’s an <a href="http://reportcard.education.ohio.gov/Pages/School-Report.aspx?SchoolIRN=009122">example</a> of what that looks like.)</p>
<p>It then goes on to say that “the report card ratings issued for the 2014–15, 2015–16, or 2016–17 school years shall not be considered in determining whether a school district or a school is subject to sanctions or penalties.” Despite this, the bill carefully notes that this does not “create a new starting point for determinations that are based on ratings over multiple years.” In other words, schools don’t get a clean slate once safe harbor is over and overall letter grades are assigned. The <a href="http://education.ohio.gov/Topics/Data/Accountability-Resources/Local-Report-Cards">report card ratings</a> for school years prior to 2014–15 will be combined with new data starting in 2017–18 to determine which sanctions apply.</p>
<p>While lawmakers may have ensured that persistently failing schools can’t permanently duck accountability, there are consequences to instituting even a temporary safe harbor. Delaying the issuance of overall school grades affects quite a few policies, including programs that policymakers took care to address in other parts of the budget. Most importantly, the affected programs are ones that directly impact students receiving a low-quality education in failing schools—making safe harbor risky for the very students it’s supposed to protect. Let’s examine a few of these programs up close.</p>
<p><strong>Voucher eligibility</strong></p>
<p>Since the budget extends safe harbor protections to schools for an additional two years, <a href="http://education.ohio.gov/Topics/Other-Resources/Scholarships/EdChoice-Scholarship-Program">Educational Choice Scholarship Program</a> (EdChoice) eligibility becomes problematic. Since school grades can’t be used to determine “sanctions or penalties,” Ohio has essentially frozen eligibility for its flagship voucher program. The schools on the eligibility list as of 2014–15 stay on the list (even if they’ve improved), and the schools not on the list stay off (even if they deserve to be on it). Students attending Ohio’s lowest-rated schools simply can’t afford—and shouldn’t be asked—to wait for a chance to move to a better school.</p>
<p><strong>Automatic closure </strong></p>
<p>“Automatic closure” describes the process that takes place when a charter school is permanently closed due to low performance. In Ohio, <a href="http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/3314.35">the law</a> outlines automatic closure differently depending on the age of the students in the school. The criteria for closure are based on school report card grades. Since the budget mandates that schools cannot be given overall report card grades and that the department cannot use report cards to determine whether a district or a school is subject to sanctions or penalties, automatic closure becomes impossible until after the 2017–18 school year.</p>
<p>This is a major setback. Recently, Fordham published <a href="http://edexcellence.net/publications/school-closures-and-student-achievement-an-analysis-of-ohio%E2%80%99s-urban-district-and"><em>School Closures and Student Achievement: An Analysis of Ohio's Urban District and Charter Schools</em></a><em>.</em> Accompanying this report was a <a href="http://glennschool.osu.edu/educational-governance/research/papers/CarlsonLavertu_RDClosure.pdf">working paper</a> that evaluated the student achievement effects of closures stemming from the automatic closure law. The authors found that students displaced by an automatic closure made significant gains in math and reading after their schools closed. As my colleague <a href="http://edexcellence.net/articles/the-effect-of-school-closure-on-student-achievement-regression-discontinuity-evidence-from">Aaron Churchill writes</a>, “This suggests that Ohio’s automatic closure law has worked as intended; it forcibly shut down some of the worst-performing schools in the state, to the benefit of the children who had attended them.” This is strong evidence that there’s little to be gained—and much to lose—by playing games with automatic closure.</p>
<p><strong>Parent trigger</strong></p>
<p>This law was passed in the 2011 state budget as a <a href="http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/3302.042">pilot program</a> for <a href="http://www.ccsoh.us/">Columbus City Schools</a> (CCS). According to the law, any school operated by CCS that is ranked according to performance index score in the lowest 5 percent of all public school buildings statewide for three or more consecutive schools years is eligible for parent trigger action. (For more on the parent trigger in Columbus, see <a href="http://edexcellence.net/articles/the-parent-trigger-hits-columbus-go-time-or-time-to-go-away">here</a>.)</p>
<p>There were twenty-one Columbus schools eligible for the parent trigger as of last September. This year’s report cards may have placed more or different schools on the list. However, since the budget makes it impossible to rank schools until 2017–18, the possibility of a parent trigger remains only for the twenty-one schools that were already eligible. While this isn’t as critical of a freeze as voucher eligibility or automatic closure for charters (since it applies only to Columbus), it still represents another pause on accountability for persistently failing schools.</p>
<p>***</p>
<p>While the safe harbor provisions in the budget are well-intentioned, they have created consequences—especially as they relate to a few of Ohio’s key school choice policies. Among these policies, the voucher eligibility issue must be addressed as soon as possible. Students in failing schools have the right to access the <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Y0UNcXMLro">best education possible</a> via a voucher. (Plus, there are a ton of <a href="http://www.scohio.org/home/success-stories/">success stories</a>.) Policymakers should waste no time this fall in adding amendments that clarify voucher eligibility. Otherwise, far too many students will be stuck in failing schools. </p>
http://edexcellence.net/articles/the-consequences-of-safe-harborOhio Gadfly Daily BlogThe consequences of safe harborJessica PoinerThe 2015 Ohio charter legislation roundup: so far, it’s all about the numbershttp://edexcellence.net/articles/the-2015-ohio-charter-legislation-roundup-so-far-it%E2%80%99s-all-about-the-numbers
<p>Charter schools joined the usual suspects—tax reform, school funding, and Medicaid—as one of the most debated and well-publicized issues of this spring’s legislative session. If you’ve followed the issue, that probably doesn’t surprise you. After all, Governor Kasich, President Faber, and Speaker Rosenberger all announced their intentions early in the year to tackle charter school reform. The result was three strong pieces of legislation (<a href="https://www.legislature.ohio.gov/legislation/legislation-summary?id=GA131-HB-64">House Bill 64</a>, <a href="https://www.legislature.ohio.gov/legislation/legislation-summary?id=GA131-HB-2">House Bill 2</a>, and <a href="https://www.legislature.ohio.gov/legislation/legislation-summary?id=GA131-SB-148">Senate Bill 148</a>) that sought to improve the charter sector. When the legislature recessed for the summer, only HB 64, the state’s biennial budget bill, had passed. (HB 2 and SB 148 won’t be analyzed here, as they’re still pending in the legislature.)</p>
<p><span style="font-size: 13.0080003738403px; line-height: 1.538em;">When Governor Kasich’s team rolled out HB 64, it contained a host of charter school reforms. The focus was on strengthening the Ohio Department of Education’s ability to oversee charter school sponsors. It built on the department’s recently implemented </span><a href="https://education.ohio.gov/getattachment/Topics/School-Choice/Community-Schools/Forms-and-Program-Information-for-Community-School/Community-School-Sponsors-%E2%80%93-Review-of-Quality-Prac/Quality-of-Sponsor-Practices-Review-for-posting-3-28-13.pdf.aspx" style="font-size: 13.0080003738403px; line-height: 1.538em;">sponsor evaluation system</a><span style="font-size: 13.0080003738403px; line-height: 1.538em;"> and instituted a series of sanctions and incentives for sponsors in an effort to drive improved student achievement at the school level. The proposal also included a series of what could best be categorized as “good government” reforms like eliminating conflicts of interest, increasing transparency, and strengthening the independence of charter school governing boards. Finally, the bill also addressed some of the funding disparities afflicting charter schools.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 13.0080003738403px; line-height: 1.538em;">Of course, it’s not how a bill starts that matters, but how it finishes. The House decided to remove most of the substantive charter school reform measures from the budget bill and place those with which they agreed in their standalone charter school legislation (HB 2). The House was right to focus on charter policy in a separate bill where the proposals could receive thoughtful and deliberate consideration and deal with charter fiscal issues in the state budget. (This type of deference to the single subject rule is rare and commendable.) More pruning of HB 64’s charter provisions occurred in the Senate and in conference committee.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 13.0080003738403px; line-height: 1.538em;">Now that the dust has settled and HB 64 has been signed into law, let’s take a look at how it will affect charter schools.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 13.0080003738403px; line-height: 1.538em;">On the funding side, the base per-pupil allocation for charter school students (matching the increase for district students) was increased from $5,800 in the current fiscal year to $5,900 in FY 16 (an increase of 1.72 percent) and $6,000 in FY 17 (an increase of 1.69 percent). While it doesn’t address the tremendous </span><a href="http://www.uaedreform.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/charter-funding-inequity-expands-oh.pdf" style="font-size: 13.0080003738403px; line-height: 1.538em;">funding disparity</a><span style="font-size: 13.0080003738403px; line-height: 1.538em;"> (charters receive 22 percent less funding statewide and around 40 percent less in some urban areas) that Ohio charter schools face, it’s desperately needed given the relatively low per-pupil funding amounts received by charters. Another funding provision, tied to the governor’s efforts to incentivize high-quality sponsors, allows local school districts to include charter schools whose sponsors have been rated “exemplary” in local tax levy requests. It’s conceivable (but unlikely given the poor relationship between many school districts and charter schools) that some districts looking holistically at the need to create high-quality seats will avail themselves of this provision and partner with top charter school networks (much like what has happened in Cleveland).</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 13.0080003738403px; line-height: 1.538em;">The funding inequity that charter schools face in general operations is exacerbated by the lack of adequate facility funding. The budget took significant action to address some of these challenges, particularly for high-performing charter schools. First, it increased the per-pupil facilities funding for all charter schools from $100 in FYs 14 and 15 (which was the first time that charters had received any per-pupil facilities funding) to $150 in FY 16 and $200 in FY 17. The bill also provided, somewhat paradoxically, $25 per pupil to online charter schools for “assistance with the cost associated with facilities.” This is the first time that Ohio has provided facilities funding for online charter schools. The funds will likely be used for costs tied to the physical locations needed to conduct student testing.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 13.0080003738403px; line-height: 1.538em;">High-performing charter schools benefit on the facilities front from HB 64 in a couple of ways (“high-performing” is defined as schools with an A, B, or C grade on the state’s </span><a href="https://education.ohio.gov/getattachment/Topics/Data/Accountability-Resources/The-A-F-Report-Card-2014-2.pdf.aspx" style="font-size: 13.0080003738403px; line-height: 1.538em;">performance index</a><span style="font-size: 13.0080003738403px; line-height: 1.538em;"> and an A or a B in </span><a href="http://education.ohio.gov/Topics/Data/Accountability-Resources/Value-Added-Technical-Reports-1" style="font-size: 13.0080003738403px; line-height: 1.538em;">value added</a><a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" style="font-size: 13.0080003738403px; line-height: 1.538em; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" title="" id="_ftnref1"><sup><sup>[1]</sup></sup></a><span style="font-size: 13.0080003738403px; line-height: 1.538em;">). First, they are able to apply for facility support from a newly created $25 million funding pool. In addition to being high performing, applicants will need to provide matching funds on a one-to-one basis. This requirement has the potential to leverage business, community, and philanthropic sources in support of improving charter school facilities. In addition, while charter schools already get the right of first refusal when districts make unused facilities available, high-performing charters will now get first priority among charter applicants. While this development is likely to be accompanied by some controversy, a strong case can be made that a limited resource—like an unused public school building—should be allotted based upon merit rather than random chance.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 13.0080003738403px; line-height: 1.538em;">HB 64 also included a few miscellaneous charter-related provisions worth noting. First, charter schools that are high-performing or have an exemplary sponsor have the option to provide pre-K services. In the past, Ohio charters haven’t been able to serve students before they reach kindergarten. (Of course, according to this </span><a href="http://edexcellence.net/articles/new-from-fordham-pre-k-and-charter-schools-where-state-policies-create-barriers-to" style="font-size: 13.0080003738403px; line-height: 1.538em;">new report</a><u style="font-size: 13.0080003738403px; line-height: 1.538em;">,</u><span style="font-size: 13.0080003738403px; line-height: 1.538em;"> neither have many other states.) This could provide better pre-K options for Ohio’s youngest students. Second, the bill creates a task force to study and make recommendations around transportation issues for traditional public schools, public charter schools, and private schools. Transportation is an issue that continues to be a </span><a href="http://www.ohio.com/news/local/ohio-s-urban-districts-cut-services-to-provide-busing-to-privately-run-charter-schools-part-3-of-3-1.477343" style="font-size: 13.0080003738403px; line-height: 1.538em;">sore spot</a><span style="font-size: 13.0080003738403px; line-height: 1.538em;"> for </span><a href="http://www.cincinnati.com/story/opinion/2015/04/29/listen-schools-bus-funding/26568305/" style="font-size: 13.0080003738403px; line-height: 1.538em;">every</a><span style="font-size: 13.0080003738403px; line-height: 1.538em;"> </span><a href="http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/education/2014/09/24/staff-shortage-causes-delays/16185759/" style="font-size: 13.0080003738403px; line-height: 1.538em;">type</a><span style="font-size: 13.0080003738403px; line-height: 1.538em;"> of </span><a href="http://www.vindy.com/news/2014/apr/01/public-buses-travel-farther-pick-up-fewe/" style="font-size: 13.0080003738403px; line-height: 1.538em;">school</a><span style="font-size: 13.0080003738403px; line-height: 1.538em;">, so progress on this front could benefit all sectors. Finally, the bill requires the Ohio Department of Education to conduct a feasibility study on establishing charter schools around the state that are focused on gifted education. As longtime champions of </span><a href="http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/gifted-talented-and-underserved" style="font-size: 13.0080003738403px; line-height: 1.538em;">gifted education</a><span style="font-size: 13.0080003738403px; line-height: 1.538em;">, we feel that this is an idea worthy of consideration—especially at a time when tens of thousands of students who are identified as gifted aren’t provided gifted services by the traditional public schools they attend.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 13.0080003738403px; line-height: 1.538em;">All in all, HB 64 should make it a little easier for all charter schools to make ends meet, and much easier for high-performing charter schools to secure and fund facilities. Now that the fiscal challenges faced by charter schools have begun to be addressed, it’s time for the governor and General Assembly to turn their attention to the </span><a href="http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2015/07/01/charter-law-reform-is-tabled-until-september.html" style="font-size: 13.0080003738403px; line-height: 1.538em;">unfinished business</a><span style="font-size: 13.0080003738403px; line-height: 1.538em;"> of </span><a href="http://www.toledoblade.com/Editorials/2015/06/29/Don-t-delay-charter-reform.html" style="font-size: 13.0080003738403px; line-height: 1.538em;">substantively</a><span style="font-size: 13.0080003738403px; line-height: 1.538em;"> </span><a href="http://www.wksu.org/news/story/43723" style="font-size: 13.0080003738403px; line-height: 1.538em;">improving</a><span style="font-size: 13.0080003738403px; line-height: 1.538em;"> Ohio’s </span><a href="http://www.ohio.com/editorial/editorials/will-ohio-repair-its-charter-schools-1.605120" style="font-size: 13.0080003738403px; line-height: 1.538em;">charter policy environment</a><span style="font-size: 13.0080003738403px; line-height: 1.538em;">. Only then can Ohio begin to rebuild its charter school reputation.</span></p>
<div><br clear="all" /><br /><hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" /><div id="ftn1">
<p><a href="#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" title="" id="_ftn1">[1]</a> Based upon the 2013–14 state report card, there are forty-five schools serving 14,874 students that would meet the “high-performing” definition.</p>
</div>
</div>
<p> </p>
http://edexcellence.net/articles/the-2015-ohio-charter-legislation-roundup-so-far-it%E2%80%99s-all-about-the-numbersOhio Gadfly Daily BlogThe 2015 Ohio charter legislation roundup: so far, it’s all about the numbersChad AldisThree ideas on fixing school funding in Ohiohttp://edexcellence.net/articles/three-ideas-on-fixing-school-funding-in-ohio
<p>Trailing only Medicaid, school spending is the second-largest public expenditure in Ohio’s <a href="http://www.lsc.ohio.gov/fiscal/bid131/budgetindetail-hb64-en-with-fy2015actuals.pdf">$65 billion annual budget</a>. Over the next biennium, the state is slated to spend $12 billion per year on education (including $2 billion per year in federal funds administered by the state), on top of $8 billion per year raised via local property taxes. Altogether, annual education expenditures will clock in at around <a href="http://education.ohio.gov/Topics/Finance-and-Funding/Finance-Related-Data/District-Profile-Reports">$11,000 per student</a>.</p>
<p>The bulk of state education spending—$7.4 billion in fiscal year 2016 (FY 16) and $7.7 billion in fiscal year 2017 (FY 17)—is sent to districts via block grants, meaning that districts can allocate funds as they choose. The value of the block grant is determined by a funding formula. FY 16’s formula aid represents an increase of 4.9 percent relative to FY 15, and the amount in FY 17 adds another 4.2 percent on top of that. These are generous increases, especially since statewide enrollment is <a href="http://education.ohio.gov/Topics/Data/Frequently-Requested-Data/Enrollment-Data">slightly declining</a>; they also exceed the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/29/business/economy/2-inflation-rate-target-is-questioned-as-fed-policy-panel-prepares-to-meet.html?_r=0">recent rate of inflation</a>.</p>
<p>Without a doubt, Ohio taxpayers are making big financial contributions to education. But one of the perennial (and perplexing) questions is whether taxpayer dollars are being properly allocated. Oftentimes—and this spring was no different—funding debates devolve into “<a href="http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2015/05/29/lawmakers-disagree-on-school-funds.html">school funding fights</a>,” particularly after budget projections reveal that not <em>every</em> district will receive more money. This usually leads to legislative scrambling to dole out more dollars everywhere.</p>
<p>Is there a strategy for ending the seemingly endless political wrangling over school funding? In my view, there is a way forward. In broad terms, here are three interrelated ideas that could move Ohio toward a clearer and more student-centered funding arrangement in the coming years.</p>
<p style="margin-left:.25in;"><strong>1. </strong><strong>Simplify—and create more transparency around—the funding mechanism</strong></p>
<p>Historically, and to this day, Ohio has allocated state funds based on the characteristics of districts. Like many states, Ohio employs a formula to determine the capacity—and thus the amount of state aid—of an entire district. (Higher-capacity districts with more local resources receive less aid, and vice versa.) The formula, however, is an elaborate assortment of economic variables that approximate the actual needs of students in a district. Meanwhile, the Byzantine nature of the formula also makes it extraordinarily difficult for the public to grasp how billions of education dollars are being distributed, rendering the formula subject to exploitation by the few insiders who actually understand how it works (a small change here or there can substantially alter the funding results).</p>
<p>To illustrate this complexity, the table below provides a high-level overview of how the “opportunity grant”—the largest of the twelve formula components—is calculated. The details of the funding formula are set out in state statute (e.g., ORC 3317.017 and 3317.022). Bear in mind that several other components of the formula, particularly the “targeted assistance” and “capacity aid,” are just as intricate as the computation displayed below.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Table 1: </strong>The Opportunity Grant calculation for FY 2016–17</p>
<p><img style="width: 499px; height: 300px;" class="media-element file-default" typeof="foaf:Image" src="http://edexcellence.net/sites/default/files/Aaron%20chart_2.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p style="margin-left:.25in;"><strong>2. </strong><strong>Refine the weighted student funding amounts</strong></p>
<p>Lawmakers should determine the proper amount of funding for students with varying characteristics and needs. To their credit, state policymakers already have a good deal of this infrastructure in place. For example, the state has set incremental funding amounts above and beyond the core per-pupil formula amount of $5,900<a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title="" id="_ftnref1"><sup><sup>[1]</sup></sup></a> for children with disabilities, English language learners (ELLs), and career and technical education (CTE) students. (For district students, the core and incremental amounts are adjusted based on their districts’ economic traits, as described above.) For example, ELLs who have been enrolled in a U.S. school for fewer than 180 days are funded at $1,515 above the core amount.</p>
<p>But further refinement of the weighted funding system is necessary. The most urgent task is to better distinguish between students from severe economic disadvantage and those from more modest disadvantage. Currently, Ohio bases incremental funding on a binary “economically disadvantaged” (ED) variable. (In FY 16 and 17, the amount is $272 per pupil, prorated depending on the district.) Yet ED captures half of Ohio students—including a good portion of lower-middle class children—while census data reveal that <a href="http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/tables/6480-children-in-poverty?loc=37&loct=2#detailed/2/any/false/36,868,867,133,38/any/13429">about one-quarter</a> of Ohio children actually live in poverty.<a href="#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2" title="" id="_ftnref2"><sup><sup>[2]</sup></sup></a> A potential starting point is to simply identify students eligible for free lunch versus those eligible for reduced-price lunch, thus creating a third income category for funding purposes. State policymakers might also explore more sophisticated data collection that could more closely link a student’s actual family income with a weighted funding amount.</p>
<p>Other tweaks could include creating other student categories. Why only provide incremental amounts for CTE students? What about for advanced or gifted children who may need enrichment beyond typical school offerings? Perhaps the state could also provide additional allotments for students who have been homeless or serially mobile, categories that can already be tracked in the state’s data systems. Combined with a funding model that drives funds to students’ individual schools, a carefully constructed weighted student funding system could be a powerful tool to ensure that children have the opportunities they deserve.</p>
<p style="margin-left:.25in;"><strong>3. </strong><strong>Insist that funds follow children to the schools of their choice</strong></p>
<p>Finally, state lawmakers should truly operationalize a “<a href="http://www.schoolfunding.info/resource_center/media/Fordham_FundtheChild.pdf">funds-follow-the-child</a>” principle. It is true that state dollars generally follow the child at a district level (such as when students transfer across districts). But when state funds—and local property tax dollars—reach district treasuries, funding usually fails to follow the child to her school. The result is <a href="http://educationnext.org/do-districts-fund-schools-fairly/">inequitable funding</a> across individual schools (even within a district), as economist Marguerite Roza and others have pointed out. For example, a district may receive $15,000 in state funds to educate a special needs child, but we cannot be sure that those dollars actually arrive at the school she attends.</p>
<p>Yet another egregious example of funds failing to follow the child happens when she attends a charter school. In this case, property tax revenue collected by the district fails to follow the child to her non-district public school. (Virtually every <a href="http://edexcellence.net/articles/straightening-the-record-on-charters-and-local-tax-revenue">Ohio charter</a> receives zero local revenue, though the budget bill <a href="http://edexcellence.net/articles/the-2015-ohio-charter-legislation-roundup-so-far-it%E2%80%99s-all-about-the-numbers">includes a provision</a> that could open more opportunities for funding access.) Due to these distortions, state leaders should consider stepping in to ensure that public funds travel with students to the schools of their choice, whether district or charter. Taxpayer funds should be considered an entitlement for students and their families—not districts.</p>
<p>What to do? It’s time to shift instead to a school-centered approach to education funding. Instead of allocating funds based on <em>district</em> characteristics, why not base it on the needs of our education providers—individual <em>schools</em>? (<a href="http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=1000-1099/1011/Sections/1011.69.html">Florida</a> has adopted a law that better ensures funds reach schools.) Meanwhile, now that we have real-time data systems, why not fund individual schools based on the students (and their characteristics) who attend each month? While a school-centered approach is sure to be controversial—we may also need to rethink the roles of districts—it would be a more efficient and more transparent method of allocating education funds. Perhaps just as importantly, it would also ensure that an appropriate amount of funding actually reaches the <a href="http://educationnext.org/school-leaders-matter/">building-level leaders</a> whose decisions, including budgetary ones, can make a difference in children’s lives.</p>
<p><strong>Conclusion</strong></p>
<p>The amount of public investment in public schools is hefty by any standard—$20 billion per year when local, state, and federal contributions are accounted for. But while state lawmakers have made improvements to school funding policies in recent years, much more work remains to be done, especially when it comes to how these educational funds are allocated and the transparency around the funding formulae. In the coming years, state policymakers should create a simple and transparent funding model; they should continue to refine its weighted student funding structure; and they must ensure that taxpayer dollars are following children to the schools they attend. Overhauling school funding will be tough work, but an efficient funding structure will better ensure that all students have the resources they need to achieve.</p>
<div><br clear="all" /><br /><hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" /><div id="ftn1">
<p><a href="#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" title="" id="_ftn1">[1]</a> The core formula amount will rise to $6,000 in FY 17.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn2">
<p><a href="#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2" title="" id="_ftn2">[2]</a> Generally, students can be identified as “economically disadvantaged” if their household income is at or below 185 percent of the federal poverty rate ($44,000 for a family of four), making them eligible for <a href="http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2014-04788.pdf">free and reduced price lunch</a>. Free lunch eligibility is set at 130 percent federal poverty. Census data report the fraction of children at or below 100 percent federal poverty ($24,000 for a family of four). </p>
</div>
</div>
<p> </p>
http://edexcellence.net/articles/three-ideas-on-fixing-school-funding-in-ohioOhio Gadfly Daily BlogThree ideas on fixing school funding in OhioAaron Churchill Public policy and nonpublic schools: How the budget bill impacts private schoolshttp://edexcellence.net/articles/public-policy-and-nonpublic-schools-how-the-budget-bill-impacts-private-schools
<p>Nominally, private schools (or “chartered nonpublic schools,” as they are known in the Ohio Revised Code) operate with a minimal amount of state oversight. Practically, however, there is a long history of state involvement with them. In exchange for added oversight, private schools receive transportation services for students (or parents can receive <a href="http://education.ohio.gov/Topics/Finance-and-Funding/School-Transportation/School-Transportation-FAQs#FAQ666">payment in lieu of transportation</a>) through the district in which they are located; they can also seek <a href="http://education.ohio.gov/Topics/Quality-School-Choice/Private-Schools/Nonpublic-Schools-Forms-and-Program-Information">state reimbursement</a>, also passing through the district, for costs like textbook purchasing and school administration. Since Ohio began voucher programs in 1996, the bond has become even <a href="http://education.ohio.gov/Topics/Finance-and-Funding/State-Funding-For-Schools/Non-Public-School-Funding">stronger</a>.</p>
<p>On June 30, 2015, Governor John Kasich signed into law the new biennial budget (House Bill 64), which included a number of provisions impacting private schools. Here is a review of the most significant provisions.</p>
<p><strong>Auxiliary Services (AS) and Administrative Cost Reimbursement (ACR)</strong></p>
<p>As boring as their names may sound, these <a href="http://www.lsc.ohio.gov/fiscal/bid131/budgetindetail-hb64-en-with-fy2015actuals.pdf">budget line items</a> are the primary mechanism by which the state and private schools interact. Chartered nonpublic schools can request and receive reimbursements for textbooks, diagnostic/therapeutic/remedial personnel services, and “educational equipment” through the AS process. Transportation services provided to private school students are also funded via the AS line item. The amount available to private schools will go up 4.37 percent in the first year of the new biennium (fiscal year 2016) to approximately $144.3 million and 3.92 percent in the second (FY 2017) to approximately $150 million. Additionally, the per-pupil cap on AS will rise. The same goes for the ACR, which provides reimbursement for the administrative and clerical costs associated with mandated services incurred by private schools (although paid a year in arrears). Modest increases in the ACR will occur in both years of the biennium as well—up to approximately $65.2 million in FY 2016 and $67.7 million in FY 2017.</p>
<p><strong>Voucher funding</strong></p>
<p>Vouchers, defined as “scholarships” in state law, provide state funds for tuition assistance to eligible families who choose to send their children to private schools or educational providers. The funding levels for four of Ohio’s five voucher programs will see increases for the 2016 and 2017 fiscal years.</p>
<ul><li>The original EdChoice Scholarship program—for students attending chronically underperforming district schools—will see its first statutory increase in program history:</li>
</ul><p><span style="font-size: 13.0080003738403px; line-height: 1.538em;"> - For grades K–8, it rises from $4,250 to $4,650 per student per year.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 13.0080003738403px; line-height: 1.538em;"> - For grades 9–12, it rises from $5,000 to $5,900 per student for the 2015–16 school year<br /> and to</span><span style="font-size: 13.0080003738403px; line-height: 1.538em;"> $6,000 per student per year for 2016–17.</span></p>
<ul><li>The newer version of EdChoice—for low-income students regardless of school assignment/attendance—also will increase from $4,250 to $4,650 per student per year.</li>
<li>The Jon Peterson Special Needs Scholarship rises to a maximum of $27,000 per year for students with the highest educational needs.</li>
<li>The Ohio Autism Scholarship rises from $20,000 to a maximum of $27,000 per student per year.</li>
</ul><p>As we celebrate these increases, it is important to note that in many cases, the maximum funding levels for vouchers are still far less than the tuition levels at many private schools; these sometimes run <a href="http://www.privateschoolreview.com/ohio">upwards of $10,000</a> per student per year (especially in high schools). <span style="font-size: 13.0080003738403px; line-height: 1.538em;">Schools accepting voucher students are </span><a href="http://education.ohio.gov/Topics/Other-Resources/Scholarships/EdChoice-Scholarship-Program/EdChoice-Scholarship-For-Providers/Provider-FAQs#FAQ487" style="font-size: 13.0080003738403px; line-height: 1.538em;">forbidden from charging the neediest families</a><span style="font-size: 13.0080003738403px; line-height: 1.538em;"> (200 percent of the poverty level or below) for any tuition gap, and they can offer some form of service in lieu of payment to families above that level. In practice, the larger the gap, the less likely a private school is to open its doors to voucher students at all.</span></p>
<p><strong>Voucher use and eligibility</strong></p>
<p>While the funding levels for the Cleveland Scholarship Program (CSP) did not change—the high school amount was previously raised for the FY 2013 and FY 2014 budgets— the program was <a href="http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2015/05/cleveland_school_district_opposes_adding_trinity_magnificat_and_lutheran_west_high_schools_to_voucher_program.html">expanded geographically</a> to allow voucher recipients to attend three additional private schools in Cleveland suburbs.<a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title="" id="_ftnref1">[1]</a></p>
<p>The original EdChoice Scholarship program, however, bases eligibility on attending or being assigned to attend a low-performing school (with some <a href="http://education.ohio.gov/getattachment/Topics/Other-Resources/Scholarships/EdChoice-Scholarship-Program/2015_2016_ECFactSheet.pdf.aspx">additional intricacies</a>). You can read a more detailed discussion <a href="http://edexcellence.net/articles/the-consequences-of-safe-harbor">elsewhere in Ohio Gadfly Daily</a> of what significance the budget’s wide-ranging “hold harmless” protections for district schools from “sanctions or penalties” will hold in terms of voucher eligibility. But the bottom line is that eligibility for the state’s largest voucher program is frozen in place—no new schools will become eligible until the EdChoice program begins accepting applications for the 2018–19 school year. By the same token, currently-eligible schools can’t improve their way off the list until then either, which runs counter to the purpose of the scholarship: improving schools will lose students when they shouldn’t while students in real need of a better choice will once again be denied.</p>
<p>However, the newer income-based <a href="http://education.ohio.gov/Topics/Other-Resources/Scholarships/EdChoice-Scholarship-Program/Am-I-Eligible">eligibility</a> for EdChoice continues unabated, adding a grade level each year as per its <a href="http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/3310.032">initial structure.</a> Second graders will be added to eligibility in 2015–16, and third graders will follow in 2016–17. Hopefully, participating private schools will continue to adjust their outreach accordingly.</p>
<p><strong>High school policies</strong></p>
<p>The budget bill addresses a few issues that affect private high schools and their students. First, the bill exempts all nonpublic high school students—voucher and non-voucher—from the <a href="http://education.ohio.gov/getattachment/Topics/What-s-Happening-with-Ohio-s-Graduation-Requiremen/Graduation-Requirements-2018-Beyond/GradReq_2018.pdf.aspx">end-of-course exams</a> now required for high school graduation. Instead, it allows schools to substitute a test of their own choosing (from a list to be approved by the Ohio Department of Education). This allowance means that a different set of graduation requirements will be implemented for students attending private schools.</p>
<p>Second, Governor Kasich’s veto pen removed a provision added by the legislature that would have kept private schools from participating in Ohio's <a href="http://education.ohio.gov/Topics/Quality-School-Choice/College-Credit-Plus">College Credit Plus</a> program, which provides opportunities for high school students to earn graduation credits and college credits simultaneously.</p>
<p><strong>Analysis</strong></p>
<p>The long-term support of state policymakers has created an environment that has allowed nonpublic schools to educate more than 175,000 Ohio students this past year. State funding, in the form of AS and ACR reimbursements, has long supported services deemed vital to students even as they pursue education outside of the public schools. The new state budget only reinforces that notion by bumping up the AS and ACR amounts. Also to their credit, state lawmakers bolstered the voucher programs by increasing the value of the scholarships and modestly expanding eligibility. The considerable—and long overdue—increase in dollar value of the special needs vouchers will help to ensure that more students with significant disabilities have the opportunity to receive the educational services they absolutely deserve.</p>
<p>But the level of accountability for public dollars is a different kettle of fish. Are students on vouchers actually receiving a better education than they would have in their home districts? There is some <a href="http://edexcellence.net/articles/new-edchoice-data-highlights-academic-success">cursory data</a>, but the true answer is that we just don’t know yet. Private school students, including those on vouchers, can now graduate high school by passing assessments of the schools’ own choosing. It’s possible that these assessments will be less demanding than the state’s EOC exams. Either way, this policy change seems destined to give us even less information with which to craft meaningful comparisons.</p>
<p>This isn’t necessarily a problem in schools where the rigor of curriculum and assessment exceed those of the state—and there may be many of them—but there’s little transparency with which to make that judgment. Perhaps it’s time for state lawmakers and the Ohio Department of Education to consider making more robust information available about school level student outcomes, at least when it comes to schools participating in one of the voucher programs. The information is currently limited to proficiency scores, which are often misleading when students come to their school years behind academically. How can policymakers account for this? It may be time to include a measure of student growth (also known as value added) for private schools with voucher students that more accurately portrays a school’s educational effectiveness.</p>
<p>It may also be time for policymakers to consider consolidating and simplifying the disparate voucher programs. Having five separate voucher programs—more than any other state in the nation—is a sign of Ohio’s commitment to school choice. But it raises questions as well: Does it make it harder for parents to navigate their many options? Do differing program requirements and eligibility parameters make it confusing? Do multiple programs make it more difficult administratively for private schools to participate in the programs? Finally, are there benefits to having separate programs? The often overlapping programs, variable funding amounts, and differing requirements have almost certainly become an increasing challenge for all involved. More importantly, the impact is likely greatest on parents and families intended to benefit from the programs.</p>
<p>*****</p>
<p>Kudos to Ohio policymakers for their long and continuing history of supporting private school choice. Here’s hoping they continue to focus on expanding access while ensuring that Ohio’s voucher programs provide high-quality options to students around the state.</p>
<div><br clear="all" /><br /><hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" /><div id="ftn1">
<p><a href="#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" title="" id="_ftn1">[1]</a> While intended to commence in the 2015–16 school year, it turns out that a <a href="http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2015/07/hang_on_no_cleveland_voucher_money_for_magnificat_lutheran_west_and_trinity_high_schools_quite_yet.html#incart_river">drafting/redrafting error in the budget bill</a> will delay voucher acceptance in these three schools until 2016–17.</p>
</div>
</div>
<p> </p>
http://edexcellence.net/articles/public-policy-and-nonpublic-schools-how-the-budget-bill-impacts-private-schoolsOhio Gadfly Daily BlogPublic policy and nonpublic schools: How the budget bill impacts private schoolsJeff Murray, Chad Aldis, Aaron Churchill Gadfly Bites - 7/27/15http://edexcellence.net/articles/gadfly-bites-72715
<ol><li>The California “similar students” measure of achievement – as proposed for charter schools in the currently-stalled House Bill 2 – gets another bashing in the media. Our own <a href="http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2015/07/25/charter-schools-seek-allowances-based-on-students-poverty.html">Aaron Churchill is quoted here, in favor of sticking with value added measures</a>. (Columbus Dispatch, 7/25/15)<br /> </li>
<li>Like it or not, Ohio is living in a “post-5-of-8 world”. The state board of education earlier this year removed a decades-old support staffing requirement for districts. Instead of mandating specific numbers of librarians, art and music teachers, and counselors based on student population, districts can now decide their staffing needs on their own. It’s probably a bit too soon to tell for sure, but the media says that <a href="http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2015/07/27/downsizing-librarians.html">either the sky is already falling</a> (librarians are going the way of the printed book, says the Columbus Dispatch, 7/27/15)….<a href="http://www.bucyrustelegraphforum.com/story/news/local/2015/07/26/despite-gone-art-music-go-ohio-schools/30691641/">or it’s not</a> (art and music teachers seem safe…for now, says the Bucyrus Telegraph-Forum, 7/26/15).<br /> </li>
<li>As you all may know, Ohio’s Straight A Fund survived the state budget process, but at a level much reduced from the last biennium. The governing board of the fund – designed to reward educational innovation – was last week mulling <a href="http://www.gongwer-oh.com/programming/news.cfm?article_id=841420202#sthash.Krruuu3i.dpbs">how best to proceed and get the most bang for Ohio’s buck in the next round of applications</a>. (Gongwer Ohio, 7/24/15)<br /> </li>
<li>Editors in Cleveland <a href="http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/07/state_superintendent_richard_r.html">opined this weekend in opposition</a> to the process by which the so-called Youngstown Plan was enacted. (Cleveland Plain Dealer, 7/25/15)<br /> </li>
<li>As you know, the so-called Youngstown Plan is really a sharpening of the academic distress commission protocols in all of Ohio. Although currently narrowly focused on Youngstown, Lorain City Schools would likely be next in line for the new structure, given that they currently are under the old-style distress commission. The board, administration, and commission members got an update from the Ohio Department of Education last week that indicated <a href="http://www.morningjournal.com/general-news/20150724/lorain-academic-distress-commission-mulls-two-year-deadline-improve-or-out">Lorain has about two years to right its academic ship or become the “new Youngstown”</a>. (Northern Ohio Morning Journal, 7/24/15)<br /> </li>
<li><a href="http://www.morningjournal.com/general-news/20150726/lack-of-plan-causes-overwhelm-in-school-district">What are the chances of Lorain righting its ship in time to avoid becoming the “new Youngstown”</a>? Further discussion at that same ADC meeting noted above indicates either a woeful lack of progress thus far in enacting a required improvement plan or it indicates that pieces of the plan are in progress but are too “scattered” to be implemented or measured properly. Where you are on the question probably depends on how optimistic an individual you are. Quaglia. (Northern Ohio Morning Journal, 7/26/15)</li>
</ol>http://edexcellence.net/articles/gadfly-bites-72715Ohio Gadfly Daily BlogGadfly Bites - 7/27/15Jeff MurrayGadfly Bites - 7/24/15http://edexcellence.net/articles/gadfly-bites-72415
<ol><li>The state legislature is largely adjourned for the summer, but that’s not stopping folks who are interested in the issue of charter schools from reporting and opining about legislation left on the table. You can read about the opining below, but here are two pieces of journalism to start with. First up is a look at what is called the California "Similar Students" measure of school performance, essentially a replacement for value-added measures, which is proposed in the currently-stalled House Bill 2. The piece links to Ohio Gadfly Daily <a href="http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2015/07/california_charters_like_researchers_like_ohio_school_rating_plan_better_than_theirs.html#incart_river">posts by our own Aaron Churchill and guest blogger Vladimir Kogan of Ohio State University, both denouncing the proposed switch</a>. Kogan calls the California Model “the poor-man’s value-added.” Yowch. (Cleveland Plain Dealer, 7/22/15) But the PD’s Patrick O’Donnell is a true journalist and wants to hear every side of the story. A companion piece to the above <a href="http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2015/07/charter_schools_want_their_inequitable_bad_grades_in_urban_areas_changed.html#incart_river">digs deep into the who and the why of the California “Similar Students” model push in Ohio</a>. The model, supporters say, adjusts school evaluations based on percentages of students with disabilities, economic disadvantages, limited English proficiency, and students in their current school for less than one year. It is, they say, a “new solution,” which “takes into account student demographics." To be continued, I daresay. (Cleveland Plain Dealer, 7/22/15)<br /> </li>
<li>Before we get to those op-eds on charter schools, just a brief detour to note that <a href="http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/walt_gardners_reality_check/2015/06/closing_schools_can_boost_achievement.html">Fordham’s recent report on the effects of school closure on student achievement</a> is still getting noticed. To wit: a reference to the study’s findings of benefit for many students upon closure of low-performing schools appears in Walt Gardner’s blog today. Even better, he links to the surprisingly-positive review of the research written by the National Education Policy Center. (Education Week blog, 7/24/15)<br /> </li>
<li>Back to the opining now: three separate editorials decrying the state of play in charter schools in Ohio. First up, Brent Larkin <a href="http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/07/when_it_comes_to_facing_down_o.html">of the PD digs deep into the political history of charters</a>. (Cleveland Plain Dealer, 7/24/15) <a href="http://www.toledoblade.com/Featured-Editorial-Home/2015/07/23/Charter-cover-up.html">Editors in Toledo don’t go quite as far back in history</a>; in their opinion recent events are bad enough. (Toledo Blade, 7/23/15) <a href="http://www.vindy.com/news/2015/jul/23/charter-schools-overseer-resigns-probe-d/">Editors in Youngstown look outward as they opine</a>, wary of the negative national attention coming Ohio’s way. (Youngstown Vindicator, 7/23/15)<br /> </li>
<li>In WAY other charter school news, what started out sounding like a good thing – charter and STEM school students being allowed to participate in extracurricular activities in their home districts when their own schools don’t offer such things – <a href="http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/sports/2015/07/23/ohsaa-urban-enrollment.html">seems to have turned into a bad thing. At least from the perspective of Columbus-area high school coaches</a>. What’s happening? All those charter school students are now being counted as part of the student body of district schools for the purposes of “sizing” schools, leading all but one area high school to be “upsized” into new – and, one assumes, harder – divisions. The assignment process seems truly to be the issue (honestly, isn’t having access to a new pool of talent a good thing for coaches, especially when their schools get to separate sports and academics entirely?), but being a sports thing I’m probably the wrong guy to figure it out. (Columbus Dispatch, 7/23/15). This is such a big issue that <a href="http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/sports/2015/07/24/0724-arace-on-high-schools.html">a sports reporter was allowed to opine upon it today</a>. (I don’t read the sports page very thoroughly, so maybe the opining happens all the time?). Aside from the author’s fundamental misunderstanding of what charter schools are and how they operate, and aside from his bias against them based on said misunderstanding, his opining misses out on the pluses inherent in this situation that I expect will start to come to light once coaches start chatting amongst themselves (see the “pool of talent” comment, above). But I don’t know anything about sports, so don’t listen to me. (Columbus Dispatch, 7/24/15)<br /> </li>
<li>In Cleveland this week, district CEO Eric Gordon and an all-star cast of civic leaders joined together to roll out a <a href="http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2015/07/campaign_asks_everyone_to_help.html">new initiative to encourage more kids to make it to school, on time, so that teachers can help them learn</a>. CMSD’s attendance is the lowest of any Ohio district (about 89 percent, according to their last state report card). "We can only teach kids who come to school," Gordon said. "We need to end failure by absence." (Cleveland Plain Dealer, 7/23/15)<br /> </li>
<li>As much as test-haters and opter-outers would like to think otherwise, Ohio students did actually take PARCC tests this year. And those tests will be scored. And those scores will be analyzed. And we will learn things from them…depending on how widely available the information ends up being. And we also learned a great deal about our schools’ capacity for administering online assessments, the wave of the future by almost anyone’s reckoning. It seems that <a href="http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2015/07/23/rural-districts-lead-way-on-online-tests.html">Ohio’s rural schools led the way in online testing this year</a>, showing that perhaps they are better poised for said future than urban and suburban districts. Just sayin’. (Columbus Dispatch, 7/23/15)<br /> </li>
<li>Leaving aside the vaguely-Orwellian category of “mandatory electives”, <a href="http://www.cantonrep.com/article/20150723/NEWS/150729730/1997/NEWS">Canton City Schools has high hopes for what it is pitching as “success classes”,</a> required for all high school students starting in the 2015-16 school year. What are we talking about? “Soft skills” such as effective communication; problem-solving; working with colleagues as a team; how to prepare for college entrance exams, an internship and a job interview; and becoming an active community member. I applaud the high school principal when he says, “You can have a kid who takes tests well and excels academically, but that soft skills piece is just as crucial because it’s hand-in-hand… We want to help them become a complete student, one that excels ... not just in academics.” But I think there is a huge “what if…?” that may be missing in his comment. (Canton Repository, 7/24/15)</li>
</ol>http://edexcellence.net/articles/gadfly-bites-72415Ohio Gadfly Daily BlogGadfly Bites - 7/24/15Jeff MurrayGadfly Bites - 7/22/15http://edexcellence.net/articles/gadfly-bites-72215
<p>It feels like we’ve been talking about charter sponsor evaluations and the Youngstown Plan for so long that there hasn’t been room to report on much else. Today, we leave both of those elephants back in their rooms and look at what else is happening in education news…at least in the northern part of Ohio:</p>
<ol><li><span style="font-size: 13.0080003738403px; line-height: 1.538em;">What’s a school district to do when it surveys the community and gets double the number of expected responses? Ask for even more. That is the situation in Orange City Schools in Pepper Pike, Ohio. While </span><a href="http://www.cleveland.com/chagrin-valley/index.ssf/2015/07/orange_schools_still_seek_inpu.html" style="font-size: 13.0080003738403px; line-height: 1.538em;">they were pleased with the large response, they felt that a broader segment of the community was not represented</a><span style="font-size: 13.0080003738403px; line-height: 1.538em;">, specifically families of color, senior citizens, and private school families who many never have even stepped foot into an Orange district school. And they are going all out to engage those folks because “a healthy school system contributes to a healthy community”. For everyone. Nice. (Cleveland Plain Dealer, 7/21/15)</span></li>
<li><span style="font-size: 13.0080003738403px; line-height: 1.538em;">Here’s </span><a href="http://www.morningjournal.com/general-news/20150721/shrinking-school-districts-hope-for-better-future" style="font-size: 13.0080003738403px; line-height: 1.538em;">another interesting story about school districts with shrinking enrollment numbers</a><span style="font-size: 13.0080003738403px; line-height: 1.538em;">. It seems to be a broad trend in Ohio, but it is interesting to note the varied reactions of different districts: aggressive downsizing to match declines, nervous penny-pinching while hoping for a rebound, finger-pointing, shiny new buildings, etc. A good read. (Northern Ohio Morning Journal, 7/22/15)</span></li>
<li><span style="font-size: 13.0080003738403px; line-height: 1.538em;">Unionization efforts at two Cleveland charter schools in the I Can network came to a halt during the 2013-14 school year. Part of the reason was that </span><a href="http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2015/07/i_can_charter_schools_slapped.html#incart_river" style="font-size: 13.0080003738403px; line-height: 1.538em;">the union felt some teachers in the schools were retaliated against for organizing activities</a><span style="font-size: 13.0080003738403px; line-height: 1.538em;"> and took the case to the National Labor Relations Board. The NLRB this week ruled in the teachers’ favor, ordering four rehired and seven given back pay. A unionization vote is planned for this fall at both schools. (Cleveland Plain Dealer, 7/21/15)</span></li>
<li><span style="font-size: 13.0080003738403px; line-height: 1.538em;">You’ve heard of “Black Friday” shopping? Well, Ohioans are preparing for a “Green Weekend” of shopping, as in chalkboard green. Thanks to a bill passed in 2014, </span><a href="file:///C:/Users/jmurray.FRONTDSK/Google%20Drive/Shared/Press%20Clip%20Library/2015%20Press%20Clips/July/July%2020%20-%2024/hio%20offering%20tax-free%20back-to-school%20shopping%20on%20clothes,%20shoes,%20and%20school%20supplies%20Aug.%207-9" style="font-size: 13.0080003738403px; line-height: 1.538em;">Ohio will have its first ever tax-holiday weekend on school supplies August 7-9</a><span style="font-size: 13.0080003738403px; line-height: 1.538em;">…with some fine print that folks might want to read before lining up for doorbusters. (Cleveland Plain Dealer, 7/22/15)</span></li>
</ol>http://edexcellence.net/articles/gadfly-bites-72215Ohio Gadfly Daily BlogGadfly Bites - 7/22/15Jeff MurrayGadfly Bites - 7/20/15http://edexcellence.net/articles/gadfly-bites-72015
<ol><li>Following last week’s firestorm over its charter school sponsor review process, ODE <a href="http://www.gongwer-oh.com/programming/news.cfm?article_id=841370201#sthash.zR1H2Fs5.dpbs">on Friday rescinded all previously-announced sponsor rankings</a>, including the “exemplary” rating earned by Fordham. (Gongwer Ohio, 7/17/15) This turn of events was also covered by <a href="http://www.ohio.com/news/break-news/ohio-department-of-education-retracts-charter-school-assessments-top-officials-under-scrutiny-1.609057">the <em>Beacon Journal</em>, and included a quote from a blog post by our own Aaron Churchill</a> on a different but related subject. To call the ABJ story “wide-ranging” would be an understatement. (Akron Beacon Journal, 7/17/15)<br /> </li>
<li>The fallout continued over the weekend as the leader of the school choice section of ODE resigned in the wake of the controversy over the sponsor review process. Coverage of the resignation was widespread and included the <em><a href="http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2015/07/states_top_school_choice_offic.html#incart_river">Plain Dealer</a></em> (Cleveland Plain Dealer, 7/19/15), the <em><a href="http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/education/2015/07/20/davidhansen-charterschools-failing-grades-coverup/30404297/">Enquirer</a></em> (Cincinnati Enquirer, 7/20/15), and various other outlets <a href="http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2015/07/18/oh-charter-school-official-resigns.html">via the Associated Press</a> (Columbus Dispatch via AP, 7/19/15)<br /> </li>
<li>Even before the resignation was announced, the editorializing had begun. First up, editors in Akron <a href="http://www.ohio.com/editorial/editorials/start-the-investigation-of-the-state-department-of-education-1.609325">opined in favor of immediate investigation of ODE</a>, preferably by the state auditor (I know) in regard to the sponsor review process. (Akron Beacon Journal, 7/18/15). Same goes for editors in Cleveland, although they went ahead and <a href="http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/07/inexcusable_oversight_of_onlin.html">updated their opinion in light of the resignation</a> announcement. (Cleveland Plain Dealer, 7/19/15)<br /> </li>
<li>In other news, the PD is asking the questions <a href="http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2015/07/state_supt_ross_kept_youngstow.html#incart_river">who knew what and when in regard to the so-called Youngstown Plan</a> (really a sharpening of the Academic Distress Commission protocols statewide, but currently narrowly focused on Youngstown). They seem less than pleased with the info as reported. (Cleveland Plain Dealer, 7/20/15) Closer to the heart of the matter, the Vindy offered up <a href="http://www.vindy.com/news/2015/jul/19/youngstown-city-schools-plan-gets-parent/">a selection of local opinion on the plan</a> as a news item this weekend. While lots of folks are still complaining of the process by which the plan was enacted, the paper notes that no alternatives have yet emerged. And of particular focus are the comments of a 2009 YCS grad who asks where this level of public engagement/outrage has been the previous 10 years. (Youngstown Vindicator, 7/19/15) Meanwhile, editors in Youngstown <a href="http://www.vindy.com/news/2015/jul/19/youngstown-plan-is-law-time-to-give-up-t/">opined strongly against any challenge</a> to the enactment process and strongly for allowing the plan to go into effect. (Youngstown Vindicator, 7/19/15)<br /> </li>
<li>Speaking of op-eds, editors in Cleveland <a href="http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/07/three_hours_is_better_than_ten.html">opined this weekend in favor of shorter testing times</a> for students. (Cleveland Plain Dealer, 7/18/15)<br /> </li>
<li>One more editorial, if you can stand it. Editors in Canton <a href="http://www.cantonrep.com/article/20150717/OPINION/150719558/2013/OPINION">opined in favor of Ohio’s new Adult Diploma Program</a>. So much so that the piece almost turned into an advertisement. (Canton Repository, 7/17/15)<br /> </li>
<li>Finally, initial results for the third grade reading test in Ohio were released last week. And <a href="http://www.cantonrep.com/article/20150717/NEWS/150719451/1997/NEWS">the number of third graders who did not score proficient is higher this year than last</a>. That’s statewide, and in Stark County, from which this story originates. Perhaps a higher cut score is to blame, but it’s likely more than just that. Of course the widespread “safe harbor” rules for students in the recently-enacted state budget may render any concern moot in regard to the state’s Third Grade Reading “Guarantee”. (Canton Repository, 7/17/15)</li>
</ol>http://edexcellence.net/articles/gadfly-bites-72015Ohio Gadfly Daily BlogGadfly Bites - 7/20/15Jeff MurrayGadfly Bites - 7/17/15http://edexcellence.net/articles/gadfly-bites-71715
<ol><li>As we told you already, the Ohio Department of Education’s charter school sponsor review process came under fire in the State Board of Education earlier this week. The piling on has begun, but obviously when State Auditor Dave Yost (I know!) weighs in, folks listen. Fordham’s VP for Sponsorship <a href="http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2015/07/17/charter-exclusion-has-yost-concerned.html">Kathryn Mullen Upton is quoted in the <em>Dispatch</em>’s piece, stressing once again the importance of proper sponsor reviews</a>: “ ‘We’ve got a real quality issue with charter schools in Ohio,’ she said. And sponsors play a role in that… ‘They’re the ones that can let a bad school go on indefinitely.’” Well said. (Columbus Dispatch, 7/15/15)<br /> </li>
<li>Additional coverage of the sponsor review brouhaha can be found in various outlets via the <a href="http://www.crescent-news.com/latest%20headlines/2015/07/16/officials-ode-threw-out-the-f-grades">Associated Press</a> (AP, 7/16/15), the <em><a href="http://www.ohio.com/news/break-news/resignation-of-ohio-school-superintendent-richard-ross-sought-by-state-lawmaker-1.608769">Beacon Journal</a></em> (Akron Beacon Journal, 7/16/15), and the <a href="http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2015/07/will_f_grades_for_the_ecot_e-s.html">Plain Dealer</a>. (Cleveland Plain Dealer, 7/16/15)<br /> </li>
<li>The Dispatch also touches on the charter sponsor review situation <a href="http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/editorials/2015/07/17/1-state-school-board-is-right.html">while opining – again – in favor of swift charter law reform</a>. (Columbus Dispatch, 7/17/15)<br /> </li>
<li>I’m not sure whether this qualifies as irony or satire, but teachers at <a href="http://www.ohio.com/news/break-news/three-more-ohio-charter-schools-unionize-1.608690">three charter schools in Youngstown voted to unionize</a> this week. Yep. That should take care of it. (Akron Beacon Journal, 7/16/15)<br /> </li>
<li>In other news, the Governor signed HB 70 into law yesterday. That law expands the Community Learning Center concept – popular and beloved in its pilot form in Cincinnati – across Ohio. But you wouldn’t know that from this story. Fordham is for some reason namechecked in this piece which <a href="http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2015/07/gov_kasich_signs_controversi.html">focuses only on the amendment to HB 70 which creates the so-called “Youngstown Plan”</a>. (Cleveland Plain Dealer, 7/16/15). While the HB 70 amendment initially affects only Youngstown, it is actually a sharpening of the Academic Distress Commission protocols across Ohio and could apply in a number of poorly-performing districts in coming years. Here is a <a href="http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2015/07/a_quick_look_at_the_new_state_takeover_plan_for_failing_school_districts.html#incart_river">general overview of the ADC changes signed into law</a>. Once again, no mention of community learning centers at all. (Cleveland Plain Dealer, 7/16/15)<br /> </li>
<li>One more stop in Cleveland today. Due to a drafting/redrafting error in HB 64 (the state budget bill), the <a href="http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2015/07/hang_on_no_cleveland_voucher_money_for_magnificat_lutheran_west_and_trinity_high_schools_quite_yet.html">expansion of the Cleveland Scholarship Program to three private schools in suburbs outside the city limits will have to wait</a> until the 2016-17 school year. (Cleveland Plain Dealer, 7/16/15)<br /> </li>
<li>I’m sorry that I’m a little late to clipping this piece. <a href="http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/news/opinion/teaching-in-ohio-has-become-impossible/nmzJ4/">A teacher in Fairborn City Schools has decided to resign because teaching has become “impossible” for him</a>. He has done so publicly and with vitriol, indicting nearly every education stakeholder outside the walls of his school building for creating the “impossible” situation in which he found himself. (Dayton Daily News, 7/15/15)</li>
</ol>http://edexcellence.net/articles/gadfly-bites-71715Ohio Gadfly Daily BlogGadfly Bites - 7/17/15Jeff MurrayGadfly Bites - 7/15/15http://edexcellence.net/articles/gadfly-bites-71515
<ol><li>In case you missed it, Fordham was namechecked in an op-ed on charter law reform wherein <a href="http://thecourier.com/opinion/couriers-view/2015/07/14/charter-reform/">editors lament lack of legislative action</a> on same. (Findlay Courier, 7/14/15)<br /> </li>
<li>We promised you an <a href="http://www.vindy.com/news/2015/jul/14/education-frustration/">update on Monday’s community meeting on the Youngstown Plan</a>, and here it is, courtesy of the Vindy. There’s too much here for me to comment on in this forum, but this is, I think, a must-read article – and a must-follow debate – for anyone who cares about urban education reform. (Youngstown Vindicator, 7/14/15)<br /> </li>
<li>The <a href="http://www.gongwer-oh.com/programming/news.cfm?article_id=841340202#sthash.vlc3ZiPv.dpbs">State Board of Education was talking about the Youngstown Plan</a> this week also. Approximately the same dichotomy of views seen in the Vindy piece above is seen here as well, although perhaps more predictable a split on the board than in the community. (Gongwer Ohio, 7/14/15). The State Board of Ed is also on the same page as editors in Findlay, going so far as to pass <a href="http://www.gongwer-oh.com/programming/news.cfm?article_id=841340201#sthash.7YmjRrwk.dpbs">a resolution urging the legislature to pass charter law reform</a> as soon as possible. As the old paraphrase goes: victory has many parents, failure is an orphan. (Gongwer Ohio, 7/14/15)<br /> </li>
<li>The State Board of Ed also did some digging into ODE’s recent efforts to rate charter school sponsors. Specifically: <a href="http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2015/07/state_didnt_follow_the_law_in.html">whether online schools’ performance should or should not be included in the evaluation criteria</a> for those organizations whose portfolio of schools include them. Hint: they should. And the board said so rather sternly. (Cleveland Plain Dealer, 7/15/15)<br /> </li>
<li>Sticking with the PD, Patrick O’Donnell’s not done talking about PARCC just because the legislature ditched them for the future. For better or worse, <a href="http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2015/07/ohios_not_totally_done_with_parcc_as_this_years_tests_are_graded.html#incart_river">students still took the PARCC tests this year and the data still has to be interpreted</a>. Here’s a look at how that might go. (Cleveland Plain Dealer, 7/13/15) But Patrick is not all about looking back wistfully over the “PARCC era”. He has a companion piece about <a href="http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2015/07/ohios_common_core_math_and_english_tests_will_be_cut_to_3_hours_each.html#incart_river">what the new AIR math and English tests may look like in Ohio</a>, especially in terms of testing time. As is typical with the PD, the online comments section for this piece is lively and interesting. Choppa choppa choppa. (Cleveland Plain Dealer, 7/13/15)<br /> </li>
<li><a href="http://businessjournaldaily.com/niles-schools-will-be-taken-off-fiscal-watch-list/">Niles City Schools is coming off the state’s “fiscal watch” list</a> after more than 10 years because their budget is now projected to be in the black for the next five years. How did they do it? “We’ve done some creative things with our spending and watched it very carefully,” said the district supe when announcing the news. Hopefully he’ll share more fully in another venue, but kudos nonetheless. (Youngstown Business Journal, 7/10/15)<br /> </li>
<li>Finally, editors in Columbus <a href="http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/editorials/2015/07/15/1-leaders-hope-to-make-difference-in-schools.html">opine today in support of the Bright New Leaders for Ohio’s Schools program</a>, which was profiled in the paper on Monday. Nice. (Columbus Dispatch, 7/15/15)</li>
</ol>http://edexcellence.net/articles/gadfly-bites-71515Ohio Gadfly Daily BlogGadfly Bites - 7/15/15Jeff MurrayWarning signs: Observations on teacher evaluation results in Ohiohttp://edexcellence.net/articles/warning-signs-observations-on-teacher-evaluation-results-in-ohio
<p>The Ohio Education Research Center (OERC) recently r<a href="http://oerc.osu.edu/sites/oerc.osu.edu/files/research/reports/OERC_FR_SGM_FR-2015-06-03%20FINAL.pdf">eported</a> the teacher evaluation results from 2013–14, the first year of widespread implementation of the state’s new evaluation policy. The report should serve as an early warning sign while also raising a host of thorny questions about how those evaluations are being conducted in the field.</p>
<p>The study’s main finding is that the <a href="http://stateimpact.npr.org/ohio/2015/06/23/ohio-teacher-evaluations-mostly-good/">overwhelming majority</a> of Ohio teachers received high ratings. In fact, a remarkable 90 percent of teachers were rated “skilled” or “accomplished”—the two highest ratings. By contrast, a mere 1 percent of Buckeye teachers were rated “ineffective”—the lowest of the four possible ratings. These results are implausible; teaching is like other occupations, and worker productivity should vary widely. Yet Ohio’s teacher evaluation system shows little variation between teachers. It’s also evident that the evaluation is quite lenient on teacher performance. But there’s more. Let’s take a look at a few other data points reported by OERC that merit discussion.</p>
<p style="margin-left:.25in;"><strong>1. </strong><strong>Most teachers are <em>not</em> part of the value-added system</strong></p>
<p>Given the controversy around value added in teacher evaluation, it may surprise you that most Buckeye teachers don’t receive an evaluation based on value-added results. (<a href="http://www.rand.org/topics/value-added-modeling-in-education.html">Value added</a> refers to a statistical method that isolates the contribution of a teacher to her students’ learning as measured by gains on standardized exams.) Under state law, teachers with instructional responsibilities in grades and subjects in which value added is calculated (presently, grades 4–8 in math and reading) must be evaluated along those results. But as Chart 1 shows, most Ohio educators teach in grades and subjects where no value-added measure exists; thus, they are evaluated along other growth measures such as <a href="http://education.ohio.gov/Topics/Teaching/Educator-Evaluation-System/Ohio-s-Teacher-Evaluation-System/Student-Growth-Measures/Approved-List-of-Assessments">vendor assessments</a> or <a href="http://education.ohio.gov/Topics/Teaching/Educator-Evaluation-System/Ohio-s-Teacher-Evaluation-System/Student-Growth-Measures/Student-Learning-Objective-Examples">student learning objectives</a> (SLOs). These growth measures made up 50 percent of teachers’ overall ratings in 2013–14.<a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title="" id="_ftnref1">[1]</a></p>
<p><strong>Chart 1: </strong>Distribution of Ohio teachers by the type of student growth measure used in the evaluation, 2013–14</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><img class="media-element file-default" typeof="foaf:Image" src="http://edexcellence.net/sites/default/files/Aaron%20image%201_0.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p><strong style="font-size: 13.0080003738403px; line-height: 1.538em;">Source: </strong><span style="font-size: 13.0080003738403px; line-height: 1.538em;">Marsha Lewis, Anirudh Ruhil, and Margaret Hutzel, </span><a href="http://oerc.osu.edu/sites/oerc.osu.edu/files/research/reports/OERC_FR_SGM_FR-2015-06-03%20FINAL.pdf" style="font-size: 13.0080003738403px; line-height: 1.538em;"><em>Ohio’s Student Growth Measures (SGMs): A Study of Policy and Practice</em></a><span style="font-size: 13.0080003738403px; line-height: 1.538em;"> (Columbus, OH: Ohio Education Research Center, 2015), page 2</span></p>
<p>With relatively few teachers are in the value-added system, it’s important that we take a closer look at the other growth measures. What do we know about the vendor assessments? For instance, how are schools and teachers selecting them? Are they comparable to using state exams to measure gains? How are the gains calculated, and how are non-classroom effects on gains “controlled” for? What about the SLOs, local assessments developed by teachers? What are their features? How much do they vary from teacher to teacher, or from school to school? How are schools ensuring that the SLOs are robust, especially since there seems to be an inherent conflict of interest when teachers create their own assessment and growth tools?</p>
<p>Meanwhile, the practice of <a href="http://education.ohio.gov/Topics/Teaching/Educator-Evaluation-System/Ohio-s-Teacher-Evaluation-System/Student-Growth-Measures/Shared-Attribution">shared attribution</a>—ascribing a school or district’s overall or subgroup value-added result to an individual teacher—deserves serious inquiry too. Interestingly, the OERC report found that 31 percent of evaluated teachers used shared attribution to some extent. (District boards, in consultation with teachers, approve the degree to which shared attribution is used for certain teachers.) How do districts decide the weight placed on shared attribution? Is the district, building, or subgroup value-added result typically used? Why are certain districts permitting its use? Do these districts value teamwork more than others? Or do they have less reason to be concerned about “free riding”—when certain employees shirk, even while receiving credit for the greater organization’s performance? </p>
<p>Maybe there are easy answers to these questions about these non-value-added measures, which apply to 80 percent of Ohio teachers. But this analyst hasn’t seen them. Shouldn’t there be troves of research on how these growth measures are used? Where are the studies demonstrating that these are fair and objective measures of teacher productivity? </p>
<p style="margin-left:.25in;"><strong>2. </strong><strong>The evaluation is tougher for teachers in the value-added system</strong></p>
<p>If you’re an educator in the value-added system, you’re less likely than your colleagues to earn a top rating. Consider the results presented in Chart 2: Just 31 percent of teachers fully in the value-added rating system received an overall rating of accomplished, while 50 percent of teachers in the SLO/shared attribution category were rated accomplished. That’s a fairly stark difference, and it indicates that objectively measured performance, as happens in the value-added system, is a tougher standard than the other measures. When the accomplished and skilled ratings are combined, less difference emerges across teachers, as categorized by their growth measure. Yet teachers in the value-added system still appear slightly disadvantaged relative to their colleagues.</p>
<p><strong>Chart 2: </strong>Percentage of Ohio teachers receiving the two top <em>overall</em> ratings (accomplished and skilled, the former being the highest rating) by the type of student growth measure used, 2013–14</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><img class="media-element file-default" typeof="foaf:Image" src="http://edexcellence.net/sites/default/files/Aaron%20image%202.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p><strong>Source</strong>: Lewis, Ruhil, and Hutzel, <em>Ohio’s Student Growth Measures, </em>page 33</p>
<p>The student growth component, not the observational portion of the evaluation, drives the differences between teachers in the value-added system and those who are not. As Chart 3 demonstrates, just 32 percent of teachers fully in the value-added system received the highest possible rating on their evaluation’s growth component (“above”), while 54 percent of teachers in the SLO or shared attribution category received this rating. The evaluation results align with one administrator’s comment to the OERC researchers: “Value-added versus SLOs is not an equal measure.”</p>
<p><strong>Chart 3: </strong>Percentage of Ohio teachers receiving each possible rating on the <em>student growth portion</em> of their evaluation by the type of growth-measure used, 2013–14</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><img class="media-element file-default" typeof="foaf:Image" src="http://edexcellence.net/sites/default/files/Aaron%20image%203.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p><strong>Source</strong>: Lewis, Ruhil, and Hutzel, <em>Ohio’s Student Growth Measures, </em>page 33</p>
<p style="margin-left:.25in;"><br /><strong>3. </strong><strong>Classroom observation ratings are lenient</strong></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 13.0080003738403px; line-height: 1.538em;">As noted above, student growth measures, including value added if available, comprised 50 percent of teachers’ evaluations in 2013–14. So what about the other half of the evaluation—classroom observations? In Chart 4, we see that 70 percent of teachers were rated skilled and another 24 percent accomplished by their classroom observer. Meanwhile, just a miniscule number of teachers were rated ineffective—less than 1 percent.</span></p>
<p><strong>Chart 4</strong>: Percentage of Ohio teachers (across all student growth categories) in each classroom observation rating category, 2013–14</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><img class="media-element file-default" typeof="foaf:Image" src="http://edexcellence.net/sites/default/files/Aaron%20image%204.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p><strong>Source</strong>: Lewis, Ruhil, and Hutzel, <em>Ohio’s Student Growth Measures, </em>page 2</p>
<p>The results from the classroom observation side of the evaluation could be considered somewhat predictable. The New Teacher Project documented in <a href="http://tntp.org/publications/view/the-widget-effect-failure-to-act-on-differences-in-teacher-effectiveness"><em>The</em> <em>Widget Effect</em></a> that practically every teacher receives a satisfactory rating when evaluations are observation-based. This reflects a bit of common sense, too: It’s probably difficult for a principal or coworker, who works with a teacher daily, to be a tough or impartial evaluator. (It’s been rightly <a href="http://educationnext.org/classroom-observations-offer-biggest-room-improvement-teacher-evaluations/">suggested</a> that external observers may be more appropriate for observation purposes.) The positive results could also reflect something of an <a href="http://www.srmo.sagepub.com/view/encyclopedia-of-survey-research-methods/n3.xml">acquiescence bias</a>—the tendency toward “yeasaying.” For instance, classroom observers may be inclined to report that a teacher did this or that pretty well, instead of giving an honest performance appraisal. This problem may be aggravated by the fact that principals have almost no authority over hiring, promotion and pay raises, or dismissal. Hence, there’s little incentive for them to conduct tough-minded evaluations, because they can’t <a href="http://edexcellence.net/all-or-nothing-on-teacher-accountability">connect the evaluation results to staffing decisions</a>. Finally, the results could also reflect the fact that teachers are notified in advance when their formal classroom observations will occur, leading to a positively skewed evaluation relative to their everyday practices. </p>
<p><strong>Conclusion</strong></p>
<p>The first-year results indicate that Ohio’s evaluation system isn’t working properly. (To be sure, this isn’t a problem unique to Ohio; <a href="http://www.delawareonline.com/story/news/education/2014/08/21/virtually-del-teachers-receive-poor-evaluations/14374885/">other</a> <a href="http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2013/11/new_teacher_evaluation_ranks_8.html">states</a> appear to be experiencing similar issues.) The evaluation system doesn’t seem to evaluate teachers in an equally rigorous manner across the different grades and subjects; it appears to be excessively lenient, especially when it comes to the observation portion; and it’s not clear how robust the non-value-added measures of growth are. Investigating and correcting these issues, if necessary, will require the full commitment of Ohio policymakers and practitioners. A halfhearted effort is likely doomed to fail.</p>
<div><br clear="all" /><br /><hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" /><div id="ftn1">
<p><a href="#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" title="" id="_ftn1">[1]</a> In 2013–14, Ohio’s evaluation system was based half on classroom observation, which applied to all teachers, and half on student growth measures, which varied depending on the grade and subjects taught. The state established an alternative evaluation framework available to schools in 2014–15—and that alternative framework will change again with the enactment of House Bill 64 in June 2015. </p>
</div>
</div>
<p> </p>
http://edexcellence.net/articles/warning-signs-observations-on-teacher-evaluation-results-in-ohioOhio Gadfly Daily BlogWarning signs: Observations on teacher evaluation results in OhioAaron Churchill Seizing the Future: How Ohio’s Career and Technical Education Programs Fuse Academic Rigor and Real-World Experiences to Prepare Students for College and Workhttp://edexcellence.net/articles/seizing-the-future-how-ohio%E2%80%99s-career-and-technical-education-programs-fuse-academic-rigor
<p>Over the last twenty years, Ohio has transformed its vocational schools of yesteryear—saddled with limited programs, narrowly focused tracks, and low expectations—into a constellation of nearly three hundred career and technical education (CTE) locations that embed rigorous academics within a curriculum defined by real-world experience. (For more on Ohio’s CTE programs, see <a href="http://edexcellence.net/articles/career-and-technical-education-in-ohio-an-overview">here</a>.) According to a new <a href="http://www.achieve.org/publications/seizing-future">report</a> from <a href="http://www.achieve.org/">Achieve</a>, these transformations have put the Buckeye State on the cutting edge in CTE.</p>
<p>What sets Ohio apart from other states offering CTE is its commitment to high expectations. This principle was perfectly encapsulated in 2006, when the legislature was debating whether career-technical planning districts (which handle the administrative duties of CTE programs) should be held to the same standards as traditional schools. Many CTE leaders were determined that their students should be held to the same rigorous expectations as other students. Fast forward to the 2014 mid-biennial review legislation, and their determination finally became reality: Ohio now has three pathways to graduation, one of which is designed for CTE students. This pathway requires that any CTE graduate must earn “a state-approved, industry-recognized credential or a state license for practice in a vocation and achieve a score that demonstrates workforce readiness and employability on a job skills assessment.” In addition to high school graduation requirements, most CTE students also earn college credit while still in high school through dual enrollment, AP classes, and “articulate credits” (completing a specific course and earning a certification). This has led to thousands of dollars in college cost savings and opened the door to millions of dollars in scholarships.</p>
<p>In order to ensure accountability, the Ohio Department of Education (ODE) started assigning report cards to career-technical planning districts back in 2012. They report student achievement (based on CTE-aligned assessments), graduation rates, student preparation (based on dual enrollment, AP, and honors diploma numbers), and post-program outcomes. (You can check out the report cards <a href="http://reportcard.education.ohio.gov/Pages/Career-Tech.aspx">here</a>). </p>
<p>Achieve also incorporated student spotlights and close-up looks at three CTE locations: <a href="http://www.auburncc.org/">Auburn Career Center</a>, <a href="https://www.centerville.k12.oh.us/CHS">Centerville High School</a>, and <a href="http://www.mayfieldschools.org/ExcelTECCCareerTechnicalPrograms.aspx">Excel TECC</a>. These close-ups include looks at the diverse programs and pathways available to students, student outcomes, and quotes from business leaders who are quick to point out that CTE programs are just as beneficial for local businesses as they are for students and schools. The authors also explain how Ohio successfully empowers its CTE teachers to partner with businesses and implement innovative ideas.</p>
<p>Overall, the state’s CTE future looks bright—especially given Governor Kasich’s strong support. Keep doing what you’re doing, Ohio.</p>
<p>SOURCE: “<a href="http://www.achieve.org/files/Achieve_OHcareerTech.pdf">Seizing the Future: How Ohio’s Career and Technical Education Programs Fuse Academic Rigor and Real-World Experiences to Prepare Students for College and Work</a>,” Achieve (June 2015). </p>
http://edexcellence.net/articles/seizing-the-future-how-ohio%E2%80%99s-career-and-technical-education-programs-fuse-academic-rigorOhio Gadfly Daily BlogSeizing the Future: How Ohio’s Career and Technical Education Programs Fuse Academic Rigor and Real-World Experiences to Prepare Students for College and WorkJessica PoinerGadfly Bites - 7/13/15http://edexcellence.net/articles/gadfly-bites-71315
<ol><li>Our own Aaron Churchill was quoted in two stories about urban education this weekend. First up, <a href="http://www.ohio.com/news/local/new-national-database-says-urban-schools-sometimes-better-at-educating-students-1.607572">the ABJ is talking about a new nationwide online rating system for schools</a> which, they say, attempts to “correct” for the effects of poverty in existing ranking processes. Aaron points out that while an overall single grade for a school is helpful for parents looking for information, if the components of that grade don’t include value-added data (which the new site doesn’t), then it’s not a fully accurate measure. (Akron Beacon Journal, 7/12/15) Second is a look at <a href="http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/news/ohios-struggling-schools-way-behind-peers/nmw5C/">the state of play in Fordham’s hometown of Dayton</a>. The story is wide-ranging and Aaron is brought in to talk about how the so-called “Youngstown Plan” might take root in Dayton should it tip into academic distress status. But Aaron, as usual, digs a little deeper. “I think raising the academic standards in terms of Common Core, as well as the new science and social studies standards,” he says, “raises expectations for kids who have had low expectations for years.” Nice. (Dayton Daily News, 7/12/15)<br /> </li>
<li>Speaking of Common Core (takes you back, doesn’t it?), editors in Toledo see the legislative prohibition on Ohio’s participation in PARCC as a slippery slope toward ditching Common Core. They <a href="http://www.toledoblade.com/Featured-Editorial-Home/2015/07/11/Keep-Common-Core-2.html">opine against that putative ditching</a>. (Toledo Blade, 7/12/15)<br /> </li>
<li>Editors in Akron <a href="http://www.ohio.com/editorial/editorials/federal-option-for-charter-schools-1.607410">opine on U.S. Senator Sherrod Brown’s proposed charter school accountability bill</a>, believing it to be a big enough stick to compel the Ohio General Assembly to pass their own accountability bill. What happens to the national bill after that is not discussed. (Akron Beacon Journal, 7/12/15)<br /> </li>
<li>School <a href="http://www.cleveland.com/cleveland-heights/index.ssf/2015/07/school_nurses_in_cleveland_hei.html#incart_river">nurses in the Cleveland Heights-University Heights school district earn what seems to be a ton</a> of money. At least the PD seems to think so. Why so much? Longevity, mainly. But also this: “Nurses also are the first line of defense against epidemics and disease outbreaks. They monitor the health of the overall area population and respond to critical incidents on school property. Nurses identify threats --including allergies, dangerous dogs, traffic, broken equipment, bullies and lack of clean water -- in the school community.” Not quite the "dead kid prevention” argument, but almost. (Cleveland Plain Dealer, 7/12/15)<br /> </li>
<li>Here is <a href="http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2015/07/13/program-training-school-leaders.html">an update on the first crop of candidates in the Bright New Leaders for Ohio Schools program</a>. This is an effort to bring principals into schools via non-traditional pathways. “We believe leadership is leadership, and it’s time to begin trying some new and innovative school techniques to train school leaders,” said the President/CEO of the Ohio Roundtable, which has catalyzed the program. This story is Columbus-centric of course, but likely typical of the types of individuals who are among the 35 (out of the initial 850 applicants) to successfully complete the training and head out into the field this school year. (Columbus Dispatch, 7/13/15)</li>
</ol>http://edexcellence.net/articles/gadfly-bites-71315Ohio Gadfly Daily BlogGadfly Bites - 7/13/15Jeff MurrayGadfly Bites - 7/10/15http://edexcellence.net/articles/gadfly-bites-71015
<p>Not much going on in education new at the end of the week, and what there is is all about charter schools:</p>
<ol><li>In case you missed it, U.S. Senator Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) introduced legislation intended to reform charter school laws across the nation, but especially in Ohio. Coverage begins with the <em>Beacon Journal</em>, which <a href="http://www.ohio.com/news/local/ohio-sen-sherrod-brown-introduces-national-charter-school-reforms-1.606549">quotes our own Chad Aldis in response to Sen. Brown’s plan</a> to curb “fraud, abuse, waste, mismanagement and misconduct”. Federal legislation of this type “misses the mark,” says Chad, and should be left to individual states. (Akron Beacon Journal, 7/8/15)<br /> </li>
<li>This was followed by <em><a href="http://www.cantonrep.com/article/20150709/NEWS/150709349/11669/NEWS">the Repository, which simply summarized Chad’s statement</a></em> into the word “overkill” while discussing the new bill, which seems like “underkill” to me. (Canton Repository, 7/9/15)<br /> </li>
<li>As usual, the PD goes in depth, noting among other things that Sen. Brown’s bill announcement included reference to the Stanford/CREDO study of charter school performance in Ohio released in December and that Ohio’s currently-stalled charter reform bill addresses many of the issues about which Sen. Brown is concerned. Heck, they even solicited <a href="http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2015/07/sen_sherrod_brown_seeks_to_sto.html#incart_river">reaction from the senator to Chad’s comments</a>. Nice. (Cleveland Plain Dealer, 7/10/15)<br /> </li>
<li>The <em>Blade</em> dispenses with the journalism all together and goes straight to opining, agreeing with Chad that <a href="http://www.toledoblade.com/Featured-Editorial-Home/2015/07/10/No-time-for-recess.html">the federal effort would be unnecessary in Ohio if the General Assembly would just pass the bill currently pending</a> before it. (Toledo Blade, 7/10/15)</li>
</ol>http://edexcellence.net/articles/gadfly-bites-71015Ohio Gadfly Daily BlogGadfly Bites - 7/10/15Jeff MurrayCharter School Accountability Act Misses the Markhttp://edexcellence.net/articles/charter-school-accountability-act-misses-the-mark
<p>U.S. Senator Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) has introduced the Charter School Accountability Act. In making his case for charter school reform, Senator Brown cites a recent study by Stanford University’s Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) showing Ohio charter students lagging their peers in traditional public schools on state assessments.</p>
<p>“While presumably well intentioned, Senator Brown’s effort to scale up federal involvement in public charter schools nationwide based upon a situation in Ohio misses the mark,” said Chad L. Aldis, Vice President for Ohio Policy and Advocacy at the Thomas B. Fordham Institute. “Making matters worse, it seemingly ignores the tremendous state work undertaken over the last six months by Governor Kasich and the Ohio legislature to craft the most comprehensive charter school reform legislation in the state’s history—a version of which has already passed both the Ohio House and Senate.”<br /><br />Senator Brown has also offered the bill language as an amendment to the Every Child Achieves Act currently under consideration. Announcement of the legislation was met with strong support from both the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers.<br /><br />“Unfortunately, Senator Brown’s proposal goes well beyond simply strengthening accountability and transparency,” Aldis added. “The inclusion of language requiring districtwide multi-year plans and impact statements suggests that limiting the number of new charter schools—despite more than one million students on charter school waiting lists nationwide—is also on the agenda.”</p>
http://edexcellence.net/articles/charter-school-accountability-act-misses-the-markOhio Gadfly Daily BlogCharter School Accountability Act Misses the MarkChad AldisGadfly Bites - 7/8/15http://edexcellence.net/articles/gadfly-bites-7815
<ol><li><a href="http://www.vindy.com/news/2015/jul/08/group-rallies-against-schools-plan/">A rally was held yesterday in Youngstown by folks opposed to the so-called “Youngstown Plan”</a>, which is really a sharpening of the Academic Distress Commission protocols in Ohio…although targeted fairly specifically at Youngstown. Hundreds turned out, many not from Youngstown it seems, and a public meeting was announced for Monday in which some alternative to the Youngstown Plan will begin to be discussed. (Youngstown Vindicator, 7/8/15)<br /> </li>
<li>Speaking of city-based education plans in Ohio, here’s <a href="http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2015/07/new_focus_of_cleveland_plan_great_schools_for_some_kids_instead_of_good_schools_for_most.html">an update on the Cleveland Plan, which is a bit twisty</a>. One of the main goals of the Cleveland Plan in 2012 was to triple the number of students attending high-performing schools. Changes in Ohio’s report card system for schools since 2012 have altered the depth at which schools’ performance is tracked and measured. This has led the mayor, the CEO, and the Transformation Alliance to rethink their own definition of “high-performing” schools and, in fact, to craft their own. Applying this new criteria lowers the baseline number of students who, in 2012, were in high-performing schools to begin with. Depending on your perspective, this either means they’ve moved the bar lower for their own success (tripling 3,568 is easier than tripling 11,466) or they’ve more accurately defined where the starting line was back in 2012 (less schools were really good to begin with and more were in need of closing/replacing). More to come on this, I’m sure. (Cleveland Plain Dealer, 7/7/15)<br /> </li>
<li>Charter schools are a big part of the Cleveland Plan and may well feature as part of the Youngstown Plan going forward. Timely, then, for <a href="http://www.vindy.com/news/2015/jul/08/gop-legislators-give-pass-to-our-trouble/">editors in Y’town to opine in frustration that charter law reform is currently stalled</a> in the state legislature. (Youngstown Vindicator, 7/8/15)<br /> </li>
<li>One more story from Youngstown. The other shoe has dropped, and <a href="http://www.vindy.com/news/2015/jul/07/ex-state-rep-robert-f-hagan-now-lobbyist-dc/">we now know what siren song drew State Board of Ed member Robert Hagan away from his elected office</a> and the Buckeye State: it was a train whistle! Former locomotive engineer Hagan began his gig as D.C. lobbyist for the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen on Monday. (Youngstown Vindicator, 7/7/15)<br /> </li>
<li>Finally, here is a story about <a href="http://www.ohio.com/news/local/poor-shrinking-neighborhoods-in-akron-wait-for-new-schools-1.605955">the status of school rebuilding/replacing projects in Akron City Schools</a>, a process begun in 2003 and projected to wrap up in 2021. As enrollment in the district has dropped steadily over the last 12 years, both the local and state share of projected funding for the rebuilding effort have dropped. And decisions have had to be made. Many buildings will now be untouched in the process, including the decaying Garfield High School featured in this story. The headline, I think, is where I get tripped up. Rather than waiting for new buildings, I kept wondering when Akron families were going to rise up to demand closure/consolidation of these neglected buildings with their shrinking populations in order to make more efficient use of the new facilities created and planned. But if it’s come down to simply waiting, as the headline suggests, maybe they’ll just opt to join the exodus instead – leaving via open enrollment, vouchers, charters, or whatever way they can. If it’s come down to vain waiting or a ticket out of town, it’s an easy pick. (Akron Beacon Journal, 7/6/15)</li>
</ol>http://edexcellence.net/articles/gadfly-bites-7815Ohio Gadfly Daily BlogGadfly Bites - 7/8/15Jeff MurrayA step back in accountabilityhttp://edexcellence.net/articles/a-step-back-in-accountability
<p>The dire findings on the performance of Ohio’s charter schools published by <a href="https://credo.stanford.edu/research-reports.html">Stanford University’s Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO)</a> have provided the badly needed political impetus to reform the state’s charter school laws. Now, however, it appears that not only are these reforms at risk, but lawmakers are actually considering steps to weaken one of the few aspects of the existing accountability system that works.</p>
<p><span style="font-size: 13.0080003738403px; line-height: 1.538em;">If existing measures show that charter schools are underperforming, it seems that some charter operators have decided that it would be easier to change the yardstick used to assess them than to improve student achievement.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 13.0080003738403px; line-height: 1.538em;">As the </span><em style="font-size: 13.0080003738403px; line-height: 1.538em;">Columbus Dispatch </em><a href="http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2015/07/01/charter-law-reform-is-tabled-until-september.html" style="font-size: 13.0080003738403px; line-height: 1.538em;">reported recently</a><span style="font-size: 13.0080003738403px; line-height: 1.538em;">, at least one charter school operator is pushing Ohio lawmakers to replace the state’s current “value-added” accountability framework with a “Similar Students Measure” (SSM), similar to metrics used in California. Doing so would be a gigantic step back in accountability and would make charter school student achievement look better than it really is.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 13.0080003738403px; line-height: 1.538em;">Here is some background: The state of California </span><a href="http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ap/documents/tdgreport0400.pdf" style="font-size: 13.0080003738403px; line-height: 1.538em;">developed</a><span style="font-size: 13.0080003738403px; line-height: 1.538em;"> such a measure back in the 1990s, before the statistical models used to estimate value added were widely available. The state and various other groups have continued to use this method because, unlike Ohio, California still has no way to link test scores to students over multiple years, which is necessary to estimate value-added models.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 13.0080003738403px; line-height: 1.538em;">Think of SSM as a poor man’s value added—indeed, the California Charter Schools Association </span><a href="http://www.calcharters.org/2012/12/similar-students-measure-ssm.html" style="font-size: 13.0080003738403px; line-height: 1.538em;">calls it</a><span style="font-size: 13.0080003738403px; line-height: 1.538em;"> a “proxy value-add”—but with a huge drawback. SSM matches schools to each other based on observable student characteristics, such as the percentage of students receiving free and reduced-price lunch and their racial composition. However, it does not account for unobservable or immeasurable factors like parental support, student motivation, or natural scholastic ability.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 13.0080003738403px; line-height: 1.538em;">This is a huge problem, as there is </span><a href="http://users.nber.org/~schools/charterschoolseval/how_NYC_charter_schools_affect_achievement_sept2009.pdf" style="font-size: 13.0080003738403px; line-height: 1.538em;">strong evidence</a><span style="font-size: 13.0080003738403px; line-height: 1.538em;"> that the kinds of students who choose to leave public schools for charters are systematically different from students who do not. Many of these differences are unobservable even with student-level data, and some of them mark charter school students as higher-achieving to begin with (even when they are still back at their public schools). Fortunately, the value-added methodology accounts for these differences; the SSM measure would not.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 13.0080003738403px; line-height: 1.538em;">To see the limits of SSM and the advantages of value-added, consider one example: UC San Diego’s </span><a href="https://preuss.ucsd.edu/" style="font-size: 13.0080003738403px; line-height: 1.538em;">Preuss School</a><span style="font-size: 13.0080003738403px; line-height: 1.538em;">. The charter school specifically targets low-income minority students. Indeed, all of its pupils would be the first in their families to go to college. When compared to other schools serving similar student populations, Preuss would seem to be a huge over-performer. Nearly all of its graduates continue on to higher education, and </span><em style="font-size: 13.0080003738403px; line-height: 1.538em;">Newsweek </em><span style="font-size: 13.0080003738403px; line-height: 1.538em;">has named it the </span><a href="http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/pressrelease/the_preuss_school_ucsd_again_named_the_nations_top_transformative_high_scho" style="font-size: 13.0080003738403px; line-height: 1.538em;">top transformative</a><span style="font-size: 13.0080003738403px; line-height: 1.538em;"> school in the country for three years in a row.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 13.0080003738403px; line-height: 1.538em;">As researchers showed a few years ago, however, the reality seems to be far more nuanced. Because of the school’s popularity, it regularly attracts more applicants than it has space to admit, and must use a random lottery to decide which students get accepted. Thanks to this lottery, we have a natural “control group”—children who applied to attend Preuss but lost the lottery—against which to compare its achievement. And when researchers did this, they found </span><a href="http://create.ucsd.edu/_files/publications/PreussReportDecember2005.pdf" style="font-size: 13.0080003738403px; line-height: 1.538em;">few significant differences</a><span style="font-size: 13.0080003738403px; line-height: 1.538em;"> in achievement between those who attend the school and those who apply but are turned away.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 13.0080003738403px; line-height: 1.538em;">How could this be? It seems to be that the school’s </span><a href="http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/all-narratives/charter-schools/the-little-charter-school-that-could/" style="font-size: 13.0080003738403px; line-height: 1.538em;">application process</a><span style="font-size: 13.0080003738403px; line-height: 1.538em;"> (students must complete essays and solicit letters of recommendation, and their parents must agree to at least fifteen hours of volunteering at the school) weeds out all but the most motivated students with plenty of support at home, precisely the kinds of students who are likely to do well academically in almost any school setting.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 13.0080003738403px; line-height: 1.538em;">To be sure, the lottery research also finds that there are real advantages to attending the Preuss School. Its students are more likely to complete classes necessary for college admission and to pursue higher education at higher rates. But few of these benefits seem to be driven by an improvement in actual student learning or achievement in the classroom. This important reality is obscured using the SSM metric, but would show up clearly with value added.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 13.0080003738403px; line-height: 1.538em;">Adding the SSM metric to Ohio’s state report cards would represent an improvement for grades and subjects where value-added measures don’t exist, or for other outcome measures, such as graduation and attendance rates. But it would be wrong to use SSM to simply replace value added for accountability purposes.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 13.0080003738403px; line-height: 1.538em;">Of course, it should be obvious why some charter operators would prefer that the SSM measure be used instead. But it is disappointing that policymakers are considering going along with this. It would be like abandoning high-speed, fiber-optic Internet to go back to the days of dial-up. Let’s not go backward.</span></p>
<p><a href="http://u.osu.edu/kogan.18/" style="font-size: 13.0080003738403px; line-height: 1.538em;"><em>Vladimir Kogan</em></a><em style="font-size: 13.0080003738403px; line-height: 1.538em;"> is an assistant professor of political science at the Ohio State University. He received his Ph.D. from the University of California, San Diego.</em></p>
http://edexcellence.net/articles/a-step-back-in-accountabilityOhio Gadfly Daily BlogA step back in accountabilityGadfly Bites - 7/6/15http://edexcellence.net/articles/gadfly-bites-7615
<ol><li>It’s been a long time since we last did a roundup of education news in Ohio, and we seem to have left things at a critical juncture. In case you missed it, the state legislature – with the governor’s help – last week made it illegal for Ohio to spend money buying tests from the PARCC consortium, ending many years of prep and one year of actual testing in the Buckeye State. Very quickly, state supe Dick Ross announced that AIR would take up the reins of math and ELA testing next year. Here is coverage of that announcement. <a href="http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2015/07/01/State_will_replace_PARCC_tests_with_AIR.html">Columbus Dispatch</a> (7/1/15), <a href="http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/news/local-education/ohio-drops-common-core-testing-for-grades-3-10/nmpzJ/">Dayton Daily News</a> (7/1/15), <a href="http://www.toledoblade.com/Education/2015/07/03/State-moves-to-replace-embattled-school-test.html">Toledo Blade</a> (7/3/15), and <a href="http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2015/07/ohio_picks_air_to_replace_just-ousted_parcc_for_common_core_tests.html#incart_river">Cleveland Plain Dealer</a> (7/1/15)<br /> </li>
<li>The PD ended its first AIR piece with the phrase, “We'll have more to add here soon,” and journalist Patrick O’Donnell was true to his word. Here are two further stories. First up is <a href="http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2015/07/air_takes_over_ohio_testing_wi.html#incart_river">a look at AIR’s track record</a> with math and ELA tests in other states, as well as discussion of how they did with Ohio’s science and social studies tests this year. I think the term is “mixed bag”. (Cleveland Plain Dealer, 7/2/15). Second is a look at AIR’s original 2013 contract to provide science and social studies testing in Ohio, in which a price schedule for math/ELA tests was also included (“Plan B” in case PARCC tests weren’t ready on time, so they say). Patrick <a href="http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2015/07/ohio_will_pay_236_million_to_air_for_common_core_tests_next_year.html#incart_river">estimates AIR will get an additional $23.6 million next year</a> for this somewhat different version of “Plan B”. (Cleveland Plain Dealer, 7/4/15)<br /> </li>
<li>Anyone who thinks that ditching PARCC was the end of the line for anti-testing folks should keep their “mission accomplished” banner folded up for the present. Here are two reasons why: First up, the Tri-Valley Local Schools supe opines, “We said a couple months ago (that concern over PARCC) was a bunch of Internet hysteria… Here, <a href="http://www.zanesvilletimesrecorder.com/story/news/local/2015/07/03/school-districts-backing-local-control-bill/29675899/">we sacked the whole program.” That, he says, makes the case for local control stronger than ever</a>. He favors the HB 212 route, which would ditch Common Core and state assessments, leaving everything up to him and his board. (Zanesville Times Recorder, 7/4/15). Secondly, the very-helpful Dr. Courtney Koestler, director of the SouthEast Ohio Center for Excellence in Mathematics and Science at Ohio University in Athens, has announced that she is “available for comment” on the PARCC/AIR switch. I don’t know to whom she’s advertising her expertise, but here’s a little preview: “I believe <a href="http://www.timesjournal.com/community/school/article_de8c67a8-d7c5-5106-9945-66622812a585.html">there needs to be much broader conversations about the value and need to assess children in these ways</a> every year.” Form a line, folks. Let’s not crowd the good doctor. (Jackson County Times-Journal, 7/2/15)<br /> </li>
<li>Speaking of piling on, here are a few pieces related to charter law reform, currently on hold in the state legislature. <a href="http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/news/charter-school-reform-delayed/nmqzb/">Fordham and Chad are namechecked in this quick dig into the reasons why House Bill 2 was not voted on</a> before legislators took off for summer break. (Dayton Daily News, 7/2/15). Gongwer Ohio opts for <a href="http://www.gongwer-oh.com/programming/news.cfm?article_id=841270207#sthash.ZfI9kEZW.dpbs">a list of those chastising the legislature</a> for not completing the work before break. No Chad or Fordham here. (Gongwer Ohio, 7/2/15). Editors in Columbus skip the journalism and simply <a href="http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/editorials/2015/07/05/1-postponing-reform-again.html">opine in frustration</a>. (Columbus Dispatch, 7/6/15)<br /> </li>
<li>In other news, there was some <a href="http://www.vindy.com/news/2015/jul/03/rally-targets-plan-for-schools/">vocal outcry in Youngstown following the legislature’s adoption of the so-called “Youngstown Plan”</a> – that is, a sharpening of the state’s Academic Distress Committee protocols. It centers mainly around the definition of “local control” but quickly spirals into a discussion of who lives inside or outside the city limits and whether or not those folks should get a voice in the process. There is a public protest of the Youngstown Plan – well, really it’s likely to be about the aforementioned process which resulted in the plan, but I digress – scheduled for tomorrow. (Youngstown Vindicator, 7/3/15)<br /> </li>
<li>We conclude with acronym alphabet soup. The Dispatch reported this weekend that <a href="http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2015/07/04/far-fewer-passing-ged-test.html">far fewer individuals were taking and passing the GED in Ohio in the last two years</a>, although that piece focuses more on the “passing” than the “taking” question. Why yes, the words “Common Core” and “controversial” <em>are</em> used in that story. Why do you ask? (Columbus Dispatch 7/4/15) Interestingly, the (still) Big D’s <a href="http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/life_and_entertainment/2015/07/04/1-never-too-late.html">companion piece looking at folks actually in the process of getting GEDs</a>, is far less heavy on the gloom, doom, and haterade. I’ll let Bobby Womick, age 53, tell you about it: “It’s hard after not being in school for like 35-plus years, but it’s coming back to me. A lot of these kids in here — 21, 22 years old — man, I’m knocking them off the box. . . . And it’s all new to me. It’s harder, but it’s fair. Anything that comes easy you don’t appreciate." Says Womick of the post common-core GED: “Do I think the old test was too easy? Yeah. Do I think the new test is too hard? Yeah.” (Columbus Dispatch 7/4/15). And of course, don’t forget <a href="http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2015/07/04/students-in-region-acing-both-act-sat.html">the ACT and the SAT, perfect scores on which are on the rise</a> in central Ohio. The story is interesting, but (speaking of haterade) the online comments are more so. (Columbus Dispatch, 7/4/15)</li>
</ol>http://edexcellence.net/articles/gadfly-bites-7615Ohio Gadfly Daily BlogGadfly Bites - 7/6/15Jeff MurrayThe ABCs of ADCs: An in-depth look at the new academic distress commission legislationhttp://edexcellence.net/articles/the-abcs-of-adcs-an-in-depth-look-at-the-new-academic-distress-commission-legislation
<p>Passed by the Ohio House and Senate, <a href="https://www.legislature.ohio.gov/legislation/legislation-documents?id=GA131-HB-70">House Bill 70</a> <a href="http://edexcellence.net/articles/sharpening-the-academic-distress-commission-in-ohio">sharpens the powers and duties</a> of “<a href="http://education.ohio.gov/Topics/School-Improvement/Academic-Distress-Commission">academic distress commissions</a>” (ADCs) in Ohio and now awaits the <a href="http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2015/06/24/youngstown-school-takeover.html">signature of Governor Kasich</a>.</p>
<p>Academic distress commissions were added to <a href="http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/3302.10">state law</a> in 2007 as a way for the state to intervene in districts that consistently fail to meet standards. Two districts (<a href="http://www.youngstowncityschools.org/AcademicDistressCommission.aspx">Youngstown</a> and <a href="http://www.lorainschools.org/adc.aspx">Lorain</a>) currently operate under the auspices of an ADC, but the new bill only applies to the former (as the latter’s commission is <a href="file:///C:/Users/jmurray.FRONTDSK/Downloads/HB0070SP.pdf">too new</a>) and to any future districts which fall into academic distress after the bill’s effective date. Despite being nicknamed the “Youngstown Plan,” HB 70 doesn’t specifically mention <a href="http://www.vindy.com/news/2015/jun/28/state-takeover-of-schools-in-youngstown-/">Youngstown</a>; on the contrary, it applies statewide and significantly alters the way <em>any</em> ADC—whether already existing or established in the future—is run. Moving forward, a new ADC will be established if a district receives an overall F grade on its <a href="http://education.ohio.gov/Topics/Data/Accountability-Resources/Ohio-Report-Cards/State-Local-Report-Cards-and-Resources">state report card</a> for three consecutive years. As for districts already under an ADC (Youngstown and Lorain), the structure of their ADCs will change on the bill’s effective date of compliance.</p>
<p>Let’s examine four of HB 70’s biggest changes to ADCs.</p>
<p><strong style="font-size: 13.0080003738403px; line-height: 1.538em;">1. </strong><strong style="font-size: 13.0080003738403px; line-height: 1.538em;">Lessening the power of the local school board</strong></p>
<p>In <a href="http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/3302.10">current law</a>, ADCs consist of five voting members: three appointed by the superintendent of public instruction and two by the president of the district’s board of education. HB 70, however, lowers the school board’s number of appointees from two to one. This allows one member of the ADC to be appointed by the mayor of the municipality in which the district is located. It therefore limits the board’s ability to approve or reject the overall plan for the ADC, which is crafted by the CEO and approved by the members of the ADC. House Bill 70 clearly puts the ADC in the driver’s seat.</p>
<p>Most interestingly, if the district has failed to earn a C by its fourth year under the ADC, the elected school board will cease to exist. Instead, a new board of education will be appointed by the mayor from a slate of candidates nominated by a panel consisting of two people appointed by the mayor, one principal employed by the district and selected via vote by the district’s principals, one teacher appointed by the local union, one parent appointed by the parent-teacher association, and the chairperson of the academic distress committee. This procedure is somewhat akin to the mayoral control of Cleveland, New York City, and Washington, D.C. In fact, HB 70 also includes provisions that outline how a referendum election would eventually determine whether the mayor continues to appoint the board or the board returns to being a locally elected body. Even with a new board—appointed or not—the CEO retains “complete operational, managerial, and instructional control of the district.”</p>
<p><strong style="font-size: 13.0080003738403px; line-height: 1.538em;">2. </strong><strong style="font-size: 13.0080003738403px; line-height: 1.538em;">Empowering a CEO</strong></p>
<p>HB 70 calls for the appointment of a powerful chief executive officer by the members of the academic distress commission. The bill states that the CEO has “complete operational, managerial, and instructional control of the district.” That includes replacing school administrators, hiring new employees, establishing employee compensation, allocating teacher class loads, conducting employee evaluations, setting the school calendar, creating the district’s budget, contracting for services, determining curriculum, and setting class sizes. As a result, the possibilities for reform are numerous: Consistently failing districts under an ADC could extend the school day or year; institute alternative pay schedules, including merit pay or offering higher pay for harder-to-fill positions like high school sciences; alter teacher class loads to allow for <a href="http://edexcellence.net/articles/leveraging-highly-effective-teaching-the-potential-of-the-%E2%80%9Chybrid-teacher%E2%80%9D">hybrid teachers</a>; or contract for <a href="http://edexcellence.net/articles/the-educator%E2%80%99s-dilemma-when-and-how-schools-should-embrace-poverty-relief">wraparound services in a more innovative way</a>. A superintendent of any traditional district, failing or otherwise, can technically already recommend reforms like this. So why is the role of the CEO so radical?</p>
<p>For starters, it’s because of collective bargaining changes. Bill text states that the CEO “shall represent the district board during any negotiations to modify, renew, or extend a collective bargaining agreement entered into by the board.” Traditionally, a superintendent is bound by a collective bargaining agreement negotiated by the school board and the local union. But in the case of HB 70, the CEO has the right to refuse to modify or extend the agreement. Similarly, if it comes time to renew the agreement, the CEO has full control over the negotiations and is “not required to bargain on subjects reserved to the management and direction of the school district.” In other words, the key functions of district management are not up for negotiation.</p>
<p>The CEO’s role is also revolutionary because of the steadily increasing power afforded to her if a district does not achieve an <a href="http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/3302.03">overall grade</a> of C or higher on its state report card. If, after one year under the ADC, the district doesn’t earn a C, the CEO is empowered to “reconstitute any school operated by the district.” This means the executive can do any of the following: Change the mission or curriculum of the school, replace the school’s principal or administrative staff, replace a majority of the staff (including teaching or nonteaching employees), contract with a nonprofit or for-profit to manage school operations, reopen the school as a charter, or permanently close the school. The last two options are the most intriguing. Reopening a school as a charter is an <a href="http://www.ed.gov/blog/2010/03/whats-possible-turning-around-americas-lowest-achieving-schools/">intervention model that is supported by the U.S. Department of Education</a> (specifically, it’s called the “restart model”) and has been used in other states.<a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title="" id="_ftnref1">[1]</a> Closing schools, although politically divisive, has been proven to <a href="http://edexcellence.net/publications/school-closures-and-student-achievement-an-analysis-of-ohio%E2%80%99s-urban-district-and">increase the academic achievement</a> of affected students—especially if they are placed in a higher-performing school. These two powers offer the CEO an unprecedented ability to change the landscape of a failing district.</p>
<p>If the district fails to achieve a C grade for additional years, the CEO is given greater tools. At the two-year mark, the CEO is permitted to “limit, suspend, or alter any provision of a collective bargaining agreement entered into, modified, renewed or extended on or after the effective date” of the bill (the CEO cannot, however, reduce base hourly pay or insurance benefits). All of these powers continue to belong to the CEO if the district fails to earn a C for a third year in a row.</p>
<p><strong style="font-size: 13.0080003738403px; line-height: 1.538em;">3. </strong><strong style="font-size: 13.0080003738403px; line-height: 1.538em;">Expanding quality school choice</strong></p>
<p>HB 70 expands choice in two ways. First, it allows for the creation of a high-quality school accelerator for the district. This accelerator is not operated by the district, and the CEO has no authority over it. Its purpose is to promote high-quality schools, recruit high-quality sponsors for charters, attract new high-quality schools to the district, and lead improvement efforts by increasing “the capacity of schools to deliver a high-quality education.” (Cincinnati is in the beginning stages of developing an accelerator based on Indianapolis’s successful Mind Trust organization.) By operating independently of the district and the CEO, the accelerator is intended to be insulated from political and financial pressures and therefore objective in its pursuit of high-quality options and agnostic to a school’s sector. HB 70 also designates every student in an ADC district “eligible to participate in the <a href="http://education.ohio.gov/Topics/Other-Resources/Scholarships/EdChoice-Scholarship-Program">Educational Choice Scholarship</a> program,” which is Ohio’s voucher program for students in failing schools. This ensures that even if the schools in the ADC continue to struggle to meet benchmarks, families will have the choice to send their children to a private school through the state’s voucher program.</p>
<p style="margin-left:.25in;"><strong>4.</strong><strong>Requiring high standards for dissolving the ADC</strong></p>
<p>In order to transition out of an ADC and back to a traditional system, a district must meet a few high expectations. First, it must earn an overall grade of C on its state report card. Once this grade is obtained, the district must have an overall grade higher than F for two more years in a row (the first C grade doesn’t count as one of these two years). If the district is given an F <em>before</em> achieving two consecutive years of higher grades, it returns to its original status in the ADC and must start the process over again by earning another C. However, if the district manages to earn grades higher than F for two consecutive years, the CEO will “relinquish all operational, managerial, and instructional control of the district to the district board and district superintendent and the academic distress commission shall cease to exist.”</p>
<p><strong>***</strong></p>
<p>Overall, HB 70 makes significant changes to Ohio’s academic distress commissions. By lessening the power of the local school board, transferring that power to an appointed CEO, opening the door to mayoral control, and expanding school choice, academic distress commissions have transformed into a far more aggressive reform. Only time will tell if this new structure will bear the kind of fruit that kids in places like Youngstown so desperately need.</p>
<div><br clear="all" /><br /><hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" /><div id="ftn1">
<p><a href="#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" title="" id="_ftn1">[1]</a> The best-known uses of the restart model include Louisiana (the <a href="http://www.rsdla.net/">Recovery School District</a>, or RSD) and Tennessee (the <a href="http://achievementschooldistrict.org/">Achievement School District</a>, or ASD.) To be clear, there are differences between the ADC legislation in Ohio and these recovery districts. For example, the RSD and ASD are statewide <em>districts</em>. Though the RSD is often linked to New Orleans and the ASD to Memphis, both districts operate schools outside those cities (the ASD has schools <a href="http://www.brickchurchcollegeprep.org/">in</a> and <a href="http://neelysbend.leadacademy.org/">around</a> Nashville, and the RSD has schools in <a href="http://lrsd.entest.org/Baton%20Rouge%20Charter%20Contact%20List%202014%20_Website_.pdf">Baton Rouge</a>). The ADCs in Ohio, on the other hand, are much more locally driven: They exist only in certain districts and—up until a certain point outlined in the law—still have locally elected school boards (though the school board’s power is significantly limited). For more on recovery school districts, check out Fordham’s latest report, <a href="http://edexcellence.net/publications/redefining-the-school-district-in-america"><em>Redefining the School District in America</em></a>. </p>
<p> </p>
</div>
</div>
<p> </p>
http://edexcellence.net/articles/the-abcs-of-adcs-an-in-depth-look-at-the-new-academic-distress-commission-legislationOhio Gadfly Daily BlogThe ABCs of ADCs: An in-depth look at the new academic distress commission legislationJessica PoinerLeading the News: 25 Years of Education Coveragehttp://edexcellence.net/articles/leading-the-news-25-years-of-education-coverage
<p>Many would argue that the media doesn’t give education the ink or airtime it deserves. But surprisingly, a new publication suggests that—at least at the local, state, and regional levels—K–12 issues receive a fair amount of attention.</p>
<p>In this study, policy strategist <a href="http://andrewcampanella.com/#Projects">Andrew Campanella</a> used the <a href="http://www.newsbank.com/">NewsBank</a> database to search for key education terms in headlines and ledes. In total, he compiled stories from more than five thousand news sources and filtered out results about higher education. He found that education coverage was up 7.7 percent in 2014 relative to the twenty-five year trend, and also discovered that local, state, and regional outlets featured K–12 education in about 6.8 percent of stories. That’s a decent proportion of stories when considering the various topics covered by media outlets. In contrast, national media was about three times less likely than local media to feature education.</p>
<p>Perhaps unsurprisingly, it isn’t education policy driving the news coverage in local outlets. Sports were by far the most covered “education” topic, appearing in 13.6 percent of state, local, and regional education stories. Special events like pep rallies and field trips were a distant second at 5.1 percent. When policy was covered, the study found that school funding (5 percent) and school choice (2.3 percent) were most prevalent. School choice coverage has fluctuated greatly in the past twenty-five years, declining from its peak in 2000 but reaching another upward trend in 2011. In addition, stories about school quality were down more than 46 percent in 2014, accounting for a mere 0.08 percent of education stories.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, two policy areas—state standards and safety—were identified as receiving more coverage in recent years. The former is undoubtedly a result of the debate around the Common Core State Standards, and the latter is likely an effect of tragic acts of violence.</p>
<p>Perhaps the biggest takeaway is that the perception of our education system is largely reflected through local reporting, which is typically geared toward the positive—like a football team’s big win or an innovative field trip. This might explain why Americans generally view their own schools in <a href="http://educationnext.org/americans-rate-local-public-schools-favorably/">a more positive light</a> than the education system as a whole. (Of course, there are exceptions; a story of malfeasance in a school is apt to make the local news too.) It’s essential for education reformers to use strategies that effectively engage the local media. If they don’t, calls for change will rarely break through.</p>
<p>This study suggests that education coverage increased in 2014, but with the huge expenditures of tax dollars on education each year, more is needed to adequately inform parents and decision makers about the state of our school system and the choices available within it.</p>
<p>SOURCE: Andrew Campanella, “<a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/268980834/Leading-the-News-25-Years-of-Education-Coverage">Leading the News: 25 Years in Education Coverage</a>,” Campanella Media and Public Affairs, Inc. (June 2015)</p>
http://edexcellence.net/articles/leading-the-news-25-years-of-education-coverageOhio Gadfly Daily BlogLeading the News: 25 Years of Education CoverageMichael PeriattGadfly Bites - 7/1/15http://edexcellence.net/articles/gadfly-bites-7115
<ol><li><a href="http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2015/07/01/charter-law-reform-is-tabled-until-september.html">Chad is quoted in a story on the stall in charter law reform in Ohio</a>. The bill that was oh-so-close to passage earlier this week now appears to be delayed until at least September. (Columbus Dispatch, 7/1/15)<br /> </li>
<li>With a stroke of his pen last night – well, actually a stroke not taken – <a href="http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2015/06/ohio_dumps_the_parcc_common_core_tests_after_woeful_first_year.html">Governor Kasich outlawed PARCC tests in Ohio</a>. The full piece from the PD also includes other testing-related details included in the new state budget. (Cleveland Plain Dealer, 6/30/15)<br /> </li>
<li>More opining on the so-called “Youngstown Plan” this week, which is really a strengthening of Ohio’s Academic Distress Commission protocols, still awaiting Governor Kasich’s aforementioned pen stroke. Here’s <a href="http://www.ohio.com/editorial/editorials/state-lawmakers-take-a-whole-day-to-introduce-and-enact-sweeping-school-reforms-1.604249">what editors in Akron had to say</a>. (Akron Beacon Journal, 6/30/15) And here’s <a href="http://www.cantonrep.com/article/20150627/OPINION/150629449/2011/OPINION">what editors in Canton had to say</a>. (Canton Repository, 6/29/15)<br /> </li>
<li>Speaking of Canton, here is <a href="http://www.cantonrep.com/article/20150630/NEWS/150639931/1997/NEWS">an update on a charter school whose sponsor – the Ohio Department of Education – intends to suspend its operations</a> due to, among other things, poor academic performance. What’s the update? The school’s operator sued to put a hold on the suspension and to try and get the closure process stopped. They lost the first one this week and the trial in the second one is set for a year from now. (Canton Repository, 6/30/15)<br /> </li>
<li>Ohio Auditor of State Dave Yost (yeah, I know) said yesterday that <a href="http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2015/06/30/Columbus_schools_halfway_in_turnaround_from_data_scandal.html">Columbus City Schools is “halfway” to fixing the problems</a> that we collectively refer to as the “data-rigging scandal”. Oh good. Just in time to start figuring out what’s up with what we’ll refer to as the “teacher evaluation conundrum” the Big D reported on over the weekend. (Columbus Dispatch, 6/30/15)<br /> </li>
<li>Finally, <a href="http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/06/cleveland_schools_must_quicken.html">editors in Cleveland urged CMSD to step up the pace</a> of school reform. (Cleveland Plain Dealer, 6/30/15)<br /> </li>
</ol>http://edexcellence.net/articles/gadfly-bites-7115Ohio Gadfly Daily BlogGadfly Bites - 7/1/15Jeff MurrayDo good schools leave low-achieving students behind?http://edexcellence.net/articles/do-good-schools-leave-low-achieving-students-behind
<p>In the reauthorization debate, civil rights groups are pressing to have ESEA force states to "do something" in schools where students as a whole are making good progress but at-risk subgroups are falling behind. Their concerns are not unreasonable, to be sure. Schools should ensure that all students, especially those who are struggling academically, are making learning gains.</p>
<p>Yet it’s not clear how often otherwise good schools fail to contribute gains for their low-achievers. Is it widespread problem or fairly isolated? Just how many schools display strong overall results, but weak performance with at-risk subgroups?</p>
<p>To shine light on this question, we turn to Ohio. The Buckeye State’s accountability system has a unique feature: Not only does it report student growth results—i.e., “value added”—for a school as a whole, but also for <a href="http://education.ohio.gov/getattachment/Topics/Data/Accountability-Resources/The-A-F-Report-Card-2014-2.pdf.aspx">certain subgroups</a>. Herein we focus on schools’ results for their low-achieving subgroups—pupils whose achievement is in the bottom 20 percent statewide—since this group likely consists of a number of children from disadvantaged backgrounds, including from minority groups.</p>
<p>(The other subgroups with growth results are gifted and special needs students, who may not be as likely to come from disadvantaged families or communities. The state does not disaggregate value-added results by race or ethnicity.)</p>
<p>In 2013–14, Ohio awarded A–F letter grades for 2,357 schools along both the overall and low-achieving value-added measures. These schools are primarily elementary and middle schools (high schools with grades 9–12 don’t receive value-added results). The table below shows the number of schools within each A–F rating combination.</p>
<p><strong>Table 1: </strong>Number of Ohio schools receiving each A–F rating combination, by value added for all students and value added for low-achieving students, 2013–14</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><img style="height: 242px; width: 400px;" class="media-element file-default" typeof="foaf:Image" src="http://edexcellence.net/sites/default/files/Aaron%20Table%201_1.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>You’ll notice that a fairly small number of schools perform well overall while flunking with their low-achievers. Seventy-nine schools—or 3.3 percent of the total—received an A or B rating for overall value added while also receiving a D or F rating for their low-achieving students. (Such schools are identified by the shaded cells.) Meanwhile, just seven schools—or a miniscule 0.3 percent—earned an A on overall value added but an F on low-achieving value added. These are the clearest cases of otherwise good schools in which low-achievers fail to make adequate progress. </p>
<p>In the chart below, we present each school’s value-added scores, both overall and for their low-achieving subgroup. What becomes apparent in this chart is the fairly close relationship between a school’s overall performance and its performance with low-achievers. In other words, if a school does well along overall value added, it typically does well with low-achievers. Conversely, if a school does poorly overall, it’s also likely to perform poorly with low-achieving students. Worth noting, of course, is that the enrollment of some schools consists of a sizeable number of low-achievers; in these cases, we’d expect a very close correlation.</p>
<p><strong>Chart 1: </strong>Value-added scores of Ohio schools, by value added for all students (vertical axis) and value added for low-achieving students (horizontal axis), 2013–14</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><img class="media-element file-default" typeof="foaf:Image" src="http://edexcellence.net/sites/default/files/Aaron%20Chart%201.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p><em><strong>Data source (for Table 1 and Chart 1)</strong>: <a href="http://reportcard.education.ohio.gov/Pages/default.aspx">Ohio Department of Education</a> <strong>Notes</strong>: The overall value-added scores are based on a three-year average (vertical axis), while scores for low-achieving students are based on a two-year average (horizontal axis). Ohio first implemented subgroup value-added results in 2012–13, hence the two-year average. The state has reported overall school value added since 2005–06. The number of schools is 2,357. Results are displayed as “index scores,” which are the average estimated gain/standard error; these scores are used to determine schools’ A–F rating. The correlation coefficient is 0.64.</em></p>
<p>So do good schools leave low-achievers behind? Generally speaking, the answer is no. A good school is usually good for all its students (and a bad school is typically bad for all its students).</p>
<p>Are there exceptions? Certainly—and thought should be given around what should be done in those cases. Local educators, school board members, parents, and community leaders must be made aware of the problem, and they should work together to find a remedy.</p>
<p>But should state or federal authorities step in to intervene directly? That’s less clear. While the state might do some good for low-achievers by demanding changes, it’s also equally plausible that intervention could aggravate the situation, perhaps even damaging an otherwise effective school.</p>
<p>The Ohio data show it to be a rare occurrence when a school performs well as a whole but does poorly with its low-achieving subgroup. One might consider this a matter of common sense—it’s plausible that high-performing schools contribute to all students’ learning more or less equally. Do these exceptions justify a federal mandate that may or may not work? In my opinion, probably not. Do these isolated cases justify derailing an otherwise promising effort to reauthorize ESEA? Definitely not. </p>
http://edexcellence.net/articles/do-good-schools-leave-low-achieving-students-behindOhio Gadfly Daily BlogDo good schools leave low-achieving students behind?Aaron Churchill Diplomas Count 2015: Life After Special Educationhttp://edexcellence.net/articles/diplomas-count-2015-life-after-special-education-0
<p>It wasn’t that long ago when you could go from one end of your K–12 education to the other without even laying eyes on a student with a disability. “In the early 1970s, these youths were marginalized both in school and in life, with only one-fifth of children with disabilities even enrolled in public schools,” notes <em>Education Week</em>, whose tenth annual “Diplomas Count” report focuses this year on students with disabilities. Today, nearly six million such students are enrolled in U.S. public schools, with the vast majority studying alongside non-disabled peers. They are “coming of age at a time when they, like all high school students, are increasingly expected to perform to high academic standards and to prepare for further education or training and a productive role in the workplace,” the authors observe.</p>
<p>How are they doing? Eighty-one percent of our public high schools students can now expect to march across stage and be handed a diploma within four years; that’s both a historic high and the headline finding of “Diplomas Count 2015.” However, the graduation rate among students with disabilities is 62 percent—a figure that masks wild (and somewhat suspicious) variations from state to state: from a low of 23 percent in Mississippi to a high of 80 percent in nearby Arkansas. <em>Education Week</em> is particularly strong in unpacking those disparities, which can be heavily influenced by both discipline practices that “disproportionately affect special education students” and variations in state graduation requirements, some of which “may be less rigorous for students with disabilities than for their peers.”</p>
<p>In Fordham’s home state of Ohio, the data is a mixed bag. The adjusted cohort graduation rate for students with disabilities is 69 percent, above the national average. Students with disabilities are also above the national average for time spent in regular classrooms (with the exception of students with emotional disturbances, whose mainstreaming lagged in Ohio). NAEP proficiency for Ohio’s students with disabilities is above the national average in math but below in reading, and both drop sharply between fourth and eighth grade, along with their peers nationally. For Ohio’s non-disabled students, proficiency rates above the national average are de rigueur. Achievement gains are generally impressive for Ohio’s disabled students (except in eighth-grade reading), while achievement gains for non-disabled students are above the national average (except in fourth-reading).</p>
<p>The theme that emerges is the need for early and comprehensive transition planning to prepare special education students to go it alone, without the resources and supports they receive during their school years. Profiles of young adults with a range of disabilities (a lab school student now successfully attending culinary arts school; twin brothers who graduated high school with modified diplomas and found jobs but “could have benefitted from more career direction in high school”) go a long way toward making the package more affecting than a typical data-fest. The key to preparing students like these for launch is setting “ambitious but realistic goals for students with disabilities, and helping them navigate the often-unfamiliar terrain of the post-high school world.”</p>
<p>In Ohio, vocational/career transition planning for students on Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) has long been required. Two years ago, the state lowered the age at which this planning must begin (from sixteen to fourteen); it also made changes to require clear statements of goals and the services being provided to meet them. The intention was to give children a voice in the plan and its execution, and for the state to provide oversight in this area.</p>
<p>To be sure, “Diplomas Count” offers data by the dump truck load. A <a href="http://www.edweek.org/ew/dc/2015/map-graduation-rates-by-state-student-group.html?intc=EW-DC15-LNAV">nifty interactive map</a> allows users to make instant comparisons of state graduation rates, sortable for students with limited English proficiency, socioeconomic disadvantage, race, and other subgroups. Some of the more interesting nuggets: Nationally, graduation rates for disadvantaged racial and ethnic groups remain substantially below those of their white and Asian peers; graduation rates are lower for students with disabilities in every state; and the largest gap between disabled students and the at-large graduation rate is 53 percent, in Mississippi (Alabama’s 3 percent gap is the smallest).</p>
<p>The outlook for students with disabilities after graduation, the report concludes, isn’t negative—just mixed.</p>
<p>SOURCE: “<a href="http://www.edweek.org/ew/toc/2015/06/04/index.html">Diplomas Count 2015: Next Steps: Life After Special Education</a>,” <em>Education Week</em> (June 2015).</p>
http://edexcellence.net/articles/diplomas-count-2015-life-after-special-education-0Ohio Gadfly Daily BlogDiplomas Count 2015: Life After Special EducationRobert PondiscioThe state of district reform in Ohio—yesterday, today, and tomorrowhttp://edexcellence.net/articles/the-state-of-district-reform-in-ohio%E2%80%94yesterday-today-and-tomorrow
<p>Elsewhere in this issue, you read about <a href="http://edexcellence.net/articles/sharpening-the-academic-distress-commission-in-ohio">the "Youngstown Plan,"</a> sharpening the teeth of Ohio’s Academic Distress Commission (ADC) protocols for persistently troubled school districts. While <a href="http://www.vindy.com/news/2015/may/27/time-is-running-out-on-ailing-youngstown/">newspaper editors</a> and <a href="http://www.vindy.com/news/2015/may/20/city-school-board-action-fail-to-set-dat/">citizen groups</a> in Youngstown have been calling for something stronger than the existing ADC for a while now, it is a singular moment of opportunity that has facilitated the new plan’s rapid adoption. The <a href="http://www.vindy.com/news/2015/may/31/youngstown-city-boe-kills-hathorns-spiri/">re-retirement</a> of former Youngstown Superintendent Connie Hathorn and the instatement of a <a href="http://www.vindy.com/news/2015/jun/19/interim-chief-seeks-input-from-community/">six-month interim supe</a> is a perfect setup for this transition. Youngstown has been in academic and financial trouble for decades, and the district has been formally under the ADC’s thumb for the past five years, yet the needle of success has <a href="http://www.vindy.com/news/2015/may/18/city-schools-improvements-in-literacy-in/">barely budged</a>.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, in Ohio’s other current ADC district, Lorain City Schools, a new superintendent was named the same day the Youngstown Plan passed. As the vote concluded, the chair of Lorain’s ADC <a href="http://www.morningjournal.com/general-news/20150625/lorain-school-board-hires-graham-over-hall-for-superintendent-position">sounded a warning</a> that the new legislation could also become the “Lorain Plan,” which would include the selection of a new CEO and the creation of a new commission light on local appointees. He’s right: Lorain’s ADC, like Youngstown’s, has <a href="http://www.morningjournal.com/general-news/20150617/official-calls-lorain-school-climate-entrenched">struggled mightily to succeed</a> in recent years. Other districts, including <a href="http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/news/local/state-gives-dps-plan-for-improvement/nmFYG/">Dayton</a> and <a href="http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/news/state-pushes-trotwood-schools-to-improve/nmXJ4/">Trotwood-Madison</a>, are also currently at risk of entering the ADC process due to persistent academic struggles.</p>
<p>These changes pale in comparison to the unique structure implemented in Cleveland, which includes mayoral control; an appointed board; a CEO; laws that make <a href="http://www.clevelandmetroschools.org/site/default.aspx?PageType=3&DomainID=409&ModuleInstanceID=1887&ViewID=047E6BE3-6D87-4130-8424-D8E4E9ED6C2A&RenderLoc=0&FlexDataID=8648&PageID=1382">parental involvement</a> mandatory; a focus on building-level autonomy; and unprecedented efforts at <a href="http://www.clevelandmetroschools.org/domain/2528">integration of district, charter, and STEM schools</a>. We have remarked on signs of success and signs that <a href="http://edexcellence.net/commentary/education-gadfly-daily/ohio-gadfly-daily/cleveland-work-to-do-but-signs-of-hope">more work</a> remains to be done. The latest <a href="http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2015/06/school_improvement_is_creeping_in_cleveland_and_must_speed_up_city_and_school_leaders_say.html#incart_river">report from the Cleveland Transformation Alliance</a> shows an encouraging decrease in the number of kids in failing schools and an increase in the number of students in high-performing schools since 2012. Still, too many students in Cleveland remain too far behind academically to claim success, and even die-hard supporters <a href="http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2015/06/school_improvement_is_creeping_in_cleveland_and_must_speed_up_city_and_school_leaders_say.html#incart_river">want to see faster progress</a>.</p>
<p>But when a similar clean-sweep strategy was proposed for Columbus in 2013, no amount of bipartisanship, <a href="http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2012/07/gov_john_kasich_signs_clevelan.html">cooperation</a> between state and local government, or heavyweight <a href="http://reimaginecolumbuseducation.org/the-report/">education commission</a> members could induce <a href="http://edexcellence.net/commentary/education-gadfly-daily/ohio-gadfly-daily/the-anatomy-of-a-levy-defeat">voters in the capital city</a> to accept such immediate and disruptive change to the status quo. Surely the defeat can be blamed on distaste for the district’s scandal-ridden ancien régime. But a dynamic superintendent and a reconfigured board are getting off the mat and taking steps to <a href="http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2015/02/18/columbus-school-board-dumps-policy-governance.html">break out</a> from stagnation. The city should build on the positive momentum and rally community support to expand high-quality schools.</p>
<p>Over the years, we at Fordham have documented the urgent need for excellent schools in Ohio’s urban communities. Too many needy students—we daresay more than fifty thousand Ohio youngsters—remain trapped in bad schools, and therefore denied their one opportunity to succeed academically and have a better chance at a happy life. These children deserve the absolute best from our local and state leaders, and whether it is bold change in Cleveland, a rejection of the bad old days in Columbus, or a new idea <a href="http://www.vindy.com/news/2015/jun/28/state-takeover-of-schools-in-youngstown-/">coming soon to Youngstown</a>, it is to be hoped that many more children have a brighter future ahead of them.</p>
http://edexcellence.net/articles/the-state-of-district-reform-in-ohio%E2%80%94yesterday-today-and-tomorrowOhio Gadfly Daily BlogThe state of district reform in Ohio—yesterday, today, and tomorrowOhio Education GadflyGadfly Bites - 6/29/15http://edexcellence.net/articles/gadfly-bites-62915
<ol><li>Editorializing on the so-called “Youngstown Plan” – that is, a proposal to strengthen Ohio’s Academic Distress Commission protocols that is likely to be signed into law by the governor – began in earnest this weekend. You can find quick-hit blog posts both in Ohio and nationally. But honestly, <a href="http://www.vindy.com/news/2015/jun/28/state-takeover-of-schools-in-youngstown-/">why don’t we just let the editors at the <em>Youngstown Vindicator</em> have the floor</a>. After all, they’ve been begging for someone to step in and save their schools for months now, as readers of Gadfly Bites will know very well. “The new legislative plan, with the creation of the chief executive officer position,” they opined, “is exactly what we have wanted.” (Youngstown Vindicator, 6/28/15).<br /> </li>
<li>On the other hand, there’s a group of Youngstown-area legislators who are <a href="http://www.wfmj.com/story/29425757/local-legislators-say-community-plan-could-stop-youngstown-schools-ceo-takeover">less-than-thrilled by this plan, especially the CEO aspect</a>. “It’s going to be up to us to solve this problem,” they say. “It’s a community problem it will take a community solution to fix it." Oddly enough, one legislator says that they want a system in place like that being piloted in Cincinnati – one that “helps engage parents and students in the school system by making the school an integral part of their community.” For those of you who like your irony, that would be the Community Learning Center model, the expansion of which came in the very same bill that brought us the CEO-based “Youngstown Plan”. (WFJM-TV, Youngstown, 6/28/15)<br /> </li>
<li>Completing our editorial roundup, editors in Toledo <a href="http://www.toledoblade.com/Editorials/2015/06/29/Don-t-delay-charter-reform.html">opined on the need for swift action on charter law reform</a>, on hold for the moment after getting oh so close last week. We couldn't agree more. (Toledo Blade, 6/28/15)<br /> </li>
<li>Meanwhile, in Lorain, the shadow of the Youngstown Plan does not seem to have dimmed the enthusiasm of <a href="http://www.morningjournal.com/general-news/20150627/graham-accepts-lorain-challenge-with-excitement">the incoming superintendent in Ohio’s only other Academic Distress district</a>. He’s very optimistic about his new gig and believes he’ll have at least a couple of years before the new ADC rules apply to Lorain. We shall see. (Northern Ohio Morning Journal, 6/27/15)<br /> </li>
<li>Meanwhile, in Columbus City Schools, it is <a href="http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2015/06/28/submitted-evaluations-were-false.html">now the teacher evaluation system that is the subject of inquiry as to falsification</a>. 36 evaluation forms were filed for speech therapists in the district in May, all of which reported on evaluation conferences which apparently never took place. All of those phantom conferences went very well, as you might imagine. Ugh. (Columbus Dispatch, 6/28/15)<br /> </li>
<li>Meanwhile, in Akron, it’s business as usual: <a href="http://www.ohio.com/news/break-news/ohio-online-charter-schools-not-accountable-for-students-who-do-poorly-in-first-year-1.603886">online charter schools are flagellated</a> in a news piece that is harsher than most negative editorials. Sometimes I think these things just write themselves. (Akron Beacon Journal, 6/28/15)</li>
</ol>http://edexcellence.net/articles/gadfly-bites-62915Ohio Gadfly Daily BlogGadfly Bites - 6/29/15Jeff Murray